RMMGA/RAP postings on Acoustic Guitar Amps (2003)

610 Messages in 120 Threads:

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

Acoustic amps and such [11]
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

Ibanez Acoustic Amp
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

practical advice needed to EQ an electric guitar amp [5]
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

Ultrasound-No Problem [2]
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

AcGtrMag Amp Reviews - Phantom Pwr Ques [6]
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

AER Compact 60 versus Behringer Ultracoustic? [2]
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

acoustic amps advise. [17]
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

Marshall/Fender acoustic amps [6]
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

Ultrasound Amps [7]
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
>
>
>
>
>

Acoustic guitar amps? [6]
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!
>
>
>

Another watts + watts =watts? question [9]
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

Ultrasound And Other Amp/Mic Issues [3]
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.

Ultrasounds and Hey Doc
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

Opinions on Ultrasound AG-30P [4]
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.

Another Amp Question... [5]
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

louder - AER Compact 60 or Ultrasound 50? [2]
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

Hey Doc, whassup with the coax speakers? [7]
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.

Ultrasound with mics only (no pickup) [6]
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--
Battery powered amplification - Passport Delux? [9]
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
>

SWR Workingman's 12 [7]
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.

AMP recommendations Crate CA112D vs CA125D ??? [3]
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?)

Ultrasounds Aloft?! [5]
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

ultrasound 50w ext. cab with a mackie? [2]
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

Amps, in the final analysis... [15]
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

Amp question from the clueless [2]
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

Strawberry Blonde Acoustic Amo [4]
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

--
ࡱ


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

AI Coda (was Strawberry Blonde Acoustic Amo)
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

Seek basic info about amplifying an acoustic guitar [2]
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.

Yorkville AM50... bad move? [3]
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

Review: Walker Labs mini-PA
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

Using microphone with acoustic amp? [15]
From: Allan Flippin <allan@ajfengr...>
Subject: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 10:10:16 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

I'd like to get an amp. to use with my acoustics for small things
(goofing around the house, weddings, etc). I've started to look
around a bit, and it seems that acoustic amps are specialized for use
with built-in pickups, not microphones.

I've so far avoided having a pickup on my acoustics. I don't like
extra holes in my guitars and I have so far not been enamored with the
"acousticness" of these pickups. My question is, can anybody
recommend an acoustic amp for my situation, using a microphone input?
Or do I need to enter the 21st century and install a pickup?

I am not big on effects, although it would be nice to have good tone
controls, a notch filter for feedback and possibly compressor.
Obviously, power output is not a concern.

Allan


From: paul asbell <paul.asbell@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 19:07:50 GMT

Allan Flippin wrote:

>I'd like to get an amp. to use with my acoustics for small things
>(goofing around the house, weddings, etc). I've started to look
>around a bit, and it seems that acoustic amps are specialized for use
>with built-in pickups, not microphones.
>
>I've so far avoided having a pickup on my acoustics. I don't like
>extra holes in my guitars and I have so far not been enamored with the
>"acousticness" of these pickups. My question is, can anybody
>recommend an acoustic amp for my situation, using a microphone input?
>Or do I need to enter the 21st century and install a pickup?
>
>I am not big on effects, although it would be nice to have good tone
>controls, a notch filter for feedback and possibly compressor.
>Obviously, power output is not a concern.
>
>Allan
>
>
Very briefly, what you are describing is a small PA system... or a small
amp that functions as one.

Others here will no doubt go into more detail, but THAT'S what you'll
want for simply a mic input.

BTW- you MAY want to investigate the B-Band, K&K, or PUTW dual-source PU
options that have a built-in microphone, if you haven't already.

--
Best regards

Paul

Paul Asbell
56 Pomeroy St
Burlington, VT 05401
802-862-7696
<pasbell@paulasbell...>
www.paulasbell.com


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 19:26:40 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Allan Flippin wrote:
> I'd like to get an amp. to use with my acoustics for small things
> (goofing around the house, weddings, etc). I've started to look
> around a bit, and it seems that acoustic amps are specialized for use
> with built-in pickups, not microphones.
>
> I've so far avoided having a pickup on my acoustics. I don't like
> extra holes in my guitars and I have so far not been enamored with the
> "acousticness" of these pickups. My question is, can anybody
> recommend an acoustic amp for my situation, using a microphone input?
> Or do I need to enter the 21st century and install a pickup?
>

The Marshall A50RS has a guitar input which is ultra-wide-ranging in
impedance compatibility - it falls rather short of the mark on 10megohm
stuff (bugs and body sensors), and is not wonderful with 4 megohm (bare
piezos) but fine with active pickups (1 megohm). Guitar Mikes are
usually balanced to 600 ohm (Hi-Z) and work OK with this amp.

It also has a voice channel with a separate Hi-Z mike input, which can
be used alongside the main 150 ohm XLR (Lo-Z, for most vocal mikes like
Shure 58s). If you did not want to put vocals through the Marshall, this
channel can be allocated the chorus and reverb just the same as the
guitar channel - the idea is you can also use for two guitars. It's
actually possible to have two mikes active on the voice channel, but of
course you have no control over their relative volumes (you can also
stick a CD/minidisk through that channel - but it gets the reverb and
chorus added, which is very odd circuitry indeed).

In total the Marshall has three different impedance inputs, two with
jacks and one XLR, and between them you should be able to get a perfect
sound from most guitar mikes either offboard or built in.

David


From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 15:50:13 -0400

On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 10:10:16 -0700, Allan Flippin wrote:

>I'd like to get an amp. to use with my acoustics for small things
>(goofing around the house, weddings, etc). I've started to look
>around a bit, and it seems that acoustic amps are specialized for use
>with built-in pickups, not microphones.
>
>I've so far avoided having a pickup on my acoustics. I don't like
>extra holes in my guitars and I have so far not been enamored with the
>"acousticness" of these pickups. My question is, can anybody
>recommend an acoustic amp for my situation, using a microphone input?
>Or do I need to enter the 21st century and install a pickup?
>
>I am not big on effects, although it would be nice to have good tone
>controls, a notch filter for feedback and possibly compressor.
>Obviously, power output is not a concern.
>
>Allan

Allan,

I asked this same question a short while, specifically about the two
channel Ultrasound amp. Bob Dorgan said it worked fine, though of
course you need a small mixer if using two mics. I imagine any amp
would work. My guess would be the cleaner the better.

G.


From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 20:10:52 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...

On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 10:10:16 -0700, Allan Flippin <<allan@ajfengr...>>
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:

>I'd like to get an amp. to use with my acoustics for small things
>(goofing around the house, weddings, etc). I've started to look
>around a bit, and it seems that acoustic amps are specialized for use
>with built-in pickups, not microphones.
>
>I've so far avoided having a pickup on my acoustics. I don't like
>extra holes in my guitars and I have so far not been enamored with the
>"acousticness" of these pickups. My question is, can anybody
>recommend an acoustic amp for my situation, using a microphone input?
>Or do I need to enter the 21st century and install a pickup?

Allan--I've been using a Fender Acoustasonic Jr. (a 40-watt job) for a
couple of years now. It has both hi-z and low-z inputs; for what you
want, it might work. And it is pretty reasonably priced.

You might be surprised at the quality of the pickups that are
available for acoustics these days, Allan. PUTW has some killer
products, that require minimal to no alteration to your guitar. No
batteries inside, either (I hate batteries in my guitars).

I find the pickup to be about the only way to go, because I just am
too uncoordinated to play into a mic effectively. (Ask Jim
McCrain...) I really like the PUTW #27, used with either a PUTW Power
Plug preamp or a Baggs PADI.

Standard Disclaimer: I don't work for PUTW. But if I don't get a job
soon, I'll probably work for frickin' Taco Bell.

<snip>

-----
"Do we find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground

 Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."
            --Crosby, Stills, and Nash
       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: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@adelphia...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 22:03:30 GMT

Allan,

 > I'd like to get an amp. to use with my acoustics for small things
> (goofing around the house, weddings, etc). I've started to look
> around a bit, and it seems that acoustic amps are specialized for
use
> with built-in pickups, not microphones.

I use a Genz Benz Shenandoah. It has 2 channels, both with 1/4" & XLR
inputs so you can use it in a lot of different combinations. That's 2
channels with XLRs for mics unlike a lot of 2 channel combos with 1
channel that has a 1/4" jack only & the second with 1/4" & XLR. Both
XLRs have phantom power as well. I think it would be perfect for a
player who wants to use a mic for guitar & another mic for vocals
without a small outboard mixer.

I have the 85W model but they've just updated it to 100W. There is
also an unpowered extension speaker available if you need it. They now
have a higher power unit available, 200W I think, plus a lower power
version called the Shenandoah Jr. with 35W. Not sure what the input
configuration is for the Jr., I think only 1 XLR with 2 1/4" jacks.

The outputs are pretty comprehensive as well. I won't go into detail,
but it would be worth your while to check out the Genz Benz web site.

On the issue of pickups, there are a bunch of good ones out there
these days, with a couple of SBTs like PUTW & AST sounding very
"natural", but not the same as a good mic. Of course, YMMV.

Good luck,

Frank Wiewandt


From: Misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 18:11:21 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Allan Flippin wrote:
> I'd like to get an amp. to use with my acoustics for small things
> (goofing around the house, weddings, etc). I've started to look
> around a bit, and it seems that acoustic amps are specialized for use
> with built-in pickups, not microphones.
>
> I've so far avoided having a pickup on my acoustics. I don't like
> extra holes in my guitars and I have so far not been enamored with the
> "acousticness" of these pickups. My question is, can anybody
> recommend an acoustic amp for my situation, using a microphone input?
> Or do I need to enter the 21st century and install a pickup?
>
> I am not big on effects, although it would be nice to have good tone
> controls, a notch filter for feedback and possibly compressor.
> Obviously, power output is not a concern.
>
> Allan

Alan, I use an Ultrasound 50DS2, 50 watt with two input channels,
one intended for guitar (via pickup or mic) and the other for
mic. Both inputs work well. I use this for playing small
venues. Often I use a 50 watt extension cabinet with it just to
get broader coverage.

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


From: Allan Flippin <allan@ajfengr...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:29:04 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Yes, I can tell the Ultrasound amps are quite well regarded! I
probably should have worded my original question better. The mic i
use for my guitar is XLR (balanced, low impedance). With the
Ultrasound, it looks like the only XLR input is not intended for
guitar, as it doesn't have the same guitar goodies that the
"instrument" input does.

The Marshall amp seems to do what I want. Although the idea of chorus
effects on a voice input seems strange, it is the "voice" input which
my guitar would be plugged into, so I'd end up getting what I want.

Allan

On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 18:11:21 -0600, Misifus
<<rseibert@cox-internet...>> wrote:

>
>Alan, I use an Ultrasound 50DS2, 50 watt with two input channels,
>one intended for guitar (via pickup or mic) and the other for
>mic. Both inputs work well. I use this for playing small
>venues. Often I use a 50 watt extension cabinet with it just to
>get broader coverage.
>
> -Ralph


From: Jerry Ranch <ranchjp@mchsi...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 23:05:37 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

>
>Alan, I use an Ultrasound 50DS2, 50 watt with two input channels,
>one intended for guitar (via pickup or mic) and the other for
>mic.

How do you get a mic xlr cable into the guitar channel? A mixer no
doubt?

Jerry


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: 13 Apr 2003 13:22:47 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Jerry,

You can use a converter cable.

The Doc


From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:54:00 GMT

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:07:38 -0500, Jerry Ranch
<<jerry.ranch@pioneer...>> wrote:

>Ralph
>Do you use a mixer or other effects box for the vox, or just right
>into the US50DS2?
>Thanks
>Jerry

Don't know about Ralph but I use a little Behringer 802 mixer into a
U/S 50 with ext amp. Played a dozen or so club gigs like that.
Sherm


From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: 16 Apr 2003 01:30:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>Hi Sherm
>Into the mic or instrument channel?
>JR
>
>>Don't know about Ralph but I use a little Behringer 802 mixer into a
>>U/S 50 with ext amp. Played a dozen or so club gigs like that.
>
>
>

Take say, the left channel 14" out on the mixer to the EFX return on the actual
amp (be sure to dummy plug the main guitar input), and the right channel out to
the only input on the powered extension. That way in both cases you are going
to the power amp section only on both boxes.

Or, if you really like the "color" of the U/S preamp section, you can go left
channel out of the mixer into the guitar input on the Ultrasound amp, then
daisy chain out to the powered extension. For this, you're looking at two
stages of gain, so caution advised. HTH.

Mitch


From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: 16 Apr 2003 02:28:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

oops! That was > left channel 1/4" out

Take say, the left channel 14" out on the mixer to the EFX return on the actual
amp (be sure to dummy plug the main guitar input), and the right channel out to
the only input on the powered extension. That way in both cases you are going
to the power amp section only on both boxes.

Or, if you really like the "color" of the U/S preamp section, you can go left
channel out of the mixer into the guitar input on the Ultrasound amp, then
daisy chain out to the powered extension. For this, you're looking at two
stages of gain, so caution advised. HTH.

Mitch


From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:07:58 GMT

On 16 Apr 2003 02:28:01 GMT, <mkarlo@aol...> (Mitch) wrote:

>oops! That was > left channel 1/4" out
>
>Take say, the left channel 14" out on the mixer to the EFX return on the actual
>amp (be sure to dummy plug the main guitar input), and the right channel out to
>the only input on the powered extension. .

If I had a second AG50R instead of the ext amp I'd do that. Not sure
if that would be 'true' stereo (whatever that is) but it could be
interesting, especially with the looper.

But as things stand now (AG 50R and AG50E), if I split left and right
I'd only have the U/S reverb, eq, notch. and shape switch on one side.

>That way in both cases you are going
>to the power amp section only on both boxes

No, the effects return doesn't cost you the eq and other features on
the amp.

>Or, if you really like the "color" of the U/S preamp section, you can go left
>channel out of the mixer into the guitar input on the Ultrasound amp, then
>daisy chain out to the powered extension. For this, you're looking at two
>stages of gain, so caution advised. HTH.

Yeah, I was doing that for awhile and had to keep the gains on the
mixer waaaaay down. It sounds a lot better now using the effects
return as the input.

Sherm


From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Using microphone with acoustic amp?
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:26:22 GMT

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:57:43 -0500, Jerry Ranch <<ranchjp@mchsi...>>
wrote:

>>Don't know about Ralph but I use a little Behringer 802 mixer into a
>>U/S 50 with ext amp. Played a dozen or so club gigs like that.

>Hi Sherm
>Into the mic or instrument channel?
>JR

Hi:
My reverb-only model (AG50R) doesn't have a mic input so I plug the
mixer out into the into the effects return. (You need a dummy plug in
the guitar input for that to work, though, as Mitch noted).
Sherm

AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..? [10]
From: Hey You <pickproblem@yahoo...>
Subject: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: 7 Apr 2003 15:32:27 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Hi all, i recently posted a message about my amplification problems
and a hiss that is coming out of my AER Acousticube IIa. I have a
Martin acoustic, fitted with B-Band piezo and soundboard transducer
pickups through an A2 preamp endpin, then going through a Raven Labs
PMB to blend the signal and then out to the Acousticube. Only problem
is, whenever I turn the Acousticube up, the background hiss is so loud
as to really piss me off and I'm sure it shouldn't be there, at least
i can't see how an amp that cost so much can give out a hiss like
that.
Some people suggested cables and incorrect installation of my guitar
electronics, but all that is fine and dandy, i've had it checked out.
I went round the guys house who installed it, he put his electric
guitar through my Acousticube - no hiss, great sound. I put my guitar
through his Roland Jazz Chorus - no hiss, great sound. Then we put my
guitar through my Acousticube - background hiss, no great sound!
He suggested that maybe that's just the way it is as far as piezo
pickups and this amp go - and that left me feeling a bit gutted!
The amp is obviously fine and so is the guitar, but when you put them
together you get...hiss! Anyone got any ideas as to what could be the
problem here? I'm thinking of selling my Acousticube at a loss and
getting myself a jazz chorus, anyone think that's a good idea? Or does
someone have a rave review to give me regarding the AER?
Please get back to me someone, this is driving me mad.
Cheers.


From: Dave G <renhoek51@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:34:39 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld

Hiya

Sorry to hear you are having problems with the acousticube,
I am in
the market for an acoustic amp and have been looking into
this range,
it's interesting to hear some feedback, anyway on to the
problem.

I would assume that it is something to do with your pickup,
as your
mate has tried his guitar through your amp, I take it you
both used the
same lead. Even though your acoustic sounded OK through the
Jazz
they are two different types of amp, electric and acoustic.
I could be
barking up the wrong tree but I would try a different
acoustic guitar
that has a piezo through your amp with your cables, if you
still get the
same result throw the amp back to AER, if the other acoustic
sounds
OK then it must be to do with your pickup
installation/shielding etc.

Does the same hiss occur with a mic input? Can you feed you
guitar
through into the line2 input and does the same thing happen?

Hope this help!

Dave

"Hey You" <<pickproblem@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<22f11248.0304071432.3372444c@posting...>...
: Hi all, i recently posted a message about my amplification
problems
: and a hiss that is coming out of my AER Acousticube IIa. I
have a
: Martin acoustic, fitted with B-Band piezo and soundboard
transducer
: pickups through an A2 preamp endpin, then going through a
Raven Labs
: PMB to blend the signal and then out to the Acousticube.
Only problem
: is, whenever I turn the Acousticube up, the background
hiss is so loud
: as to really piss me off and I'm sure it shouldn't be
there, at least
: i can't see how an amp that cost so much can give out a
hiss like
: that.
: Some people suggested cables and incorrect installation of
my guitar
: electronics, but all that is fine and dandy, i've had it
checked out.
: I went round the guys house who installed it, he put his
electric
: guitar through my Acousticube - no hiss, great sound. I
put my guitar
: through his Roland Jazz Chorus - no hiss, great sound.
Then we put my
: guitar through my Acousticube - background hiss, no great
sound!
: He suggested that maybe that's just the way it is as far
as piezo
: pickups and this amp go - and that left me feeling a bit
gutted!
: The amp is obviously fine and so is the guitar, but when
you put them
: together you get...hiss! Anyone got any ideas as to what
could be the
: problem here? I'm thinking of selling my Acousticube at a
loss and
: getting myself a jazz chorus, anyone think that's a good
idea? Or does
: someone have a rave review to give me regarding the AER?
: Please get back to me someone, this is driving me mad.
: Cheers.


From: Scott Von <scottvon@qwest...>
Subject: Re: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: 8 Apr 2003 20:58:56 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Take your time here, great amps, something is amiss, maybe gain
structure of double preamping? Somebody here will get you a good
answer, but the Jazz Chorus is not going to fullfill you that is for
certian. It works but it ain't pretty as far as solid acoustic tone.
In a band setting maybe, but still not pretty...

Try another acoustic guitar first, that will isolate if it is amp or
guitar that is the problem. Try one pickup alone without the blender,
that will answer another question!!

Hang in there man, these things are pain in the arse...

-Scott


From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 04:46:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband

in article <15ddb225.0304081958.2763e33d@posting...>, Scott Von at
<scottvon@qwest...> wrote on 4/8/03 8:58 PM:

> Take your time here, great amps, something is amiss, maybe gain
> structure of double preamping? Somebody here will get you a good
> answer, but the Jazz Chorus is not going to fullfill you that is for
> certian. It works but it ain't pretty as far as solid acoustic tone.
> In a band setting maybe, but still not pretty...
>
> Try another acoustic guitar first, that will isolate if it is amp or
> guitar that is the problem. Try one pickup alone without the blender,
> that will answer another question!!
>
> Hang in there man, these things are pain in the arse...
>
> -Scott

    Agreed.  Relax.  Diagnose the apparent problem.  AER equipment is fine.
You axe and pickups structure is fine. Something is amiss. Find out what
the problem is. Be scientific. Probably something simple, basic. Don't
throw the baby out with the bath water
--
Stephen T. Boyke


From: A. & G. Reiswig <NOSPAMreiswig@bigfoot...>
Subject: Re: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 18:11:54 GMT

My immediate thought was that the relatively extended frequency response of
the acoustic amp (the Roland I remember as bright, but nothing to speak of
above 9-10kHz) might be fooling you. The noise might be present in both,
but you only hear it when there's a tweeter there to reproduce it.

Unless there's a very odd impedance mismatch between the B-Band preamp and
the AER, something is amiss elsewhere. Troubleshooting is tricky, but I bet
there is a simple problem somewhere.

Also, plugging an electric into the AER isn't necessarily a great
test...better to get a different guitar with an acoustic pickup. Maybe take
it down to a local guitar shop and try some different guitars with it?

George Reiswig
Song of the River Music
"Scott Von" <<scottvon@qwest...>> wrote in message
news:<15ddb225.0304081958.2763e33d@posting...>...
> Take your time here, great amps, something is amiss, maybe gain
> structure of double preamping? Somebody here will get you a good
> answer, but the Jazz Chorus is not going to fullfill you that is for
> certian. It works but it ain't pretty as far as solid acoustic tone.
> In a band setting maybe, but still not pretty...
>
> Try another acoustic guitar first, that will isolate if it is amp or
> guitar that is the problem. Try one pickup alone without the blender,
> that will answer another question!!
>
> Hang in there man, these things are pain in the arse...
>
> -Scott


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 15:27:00 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

The problem is very strange, but I think George offers a potentially
promising insight here:

> My immediate thought was that the relatively extended frequency response of
> the acoustic amp (the Roland I remember as bright, but nothing to speak of
> above 9-10kHz) might be fooling you. The noise might be present in both,
> but you only hear it when there's a tweeter there to reproduce it.

Note that, if true, this means a different acoustic amp will not fix things.
Have you tried plugging it into a PA? That would rule out the whole amp
issue.

FWIW, Josh Pincus recently had an A1 preamp that was inherently noisy,
and the folks at B-Band happily replaced it. It was a whopping amount
of noise, though, so it was unambiguous that the preamp had a problem.

Peace,
Tom


From: Hey You <pickproblem@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: 10 Apr 2003 05:44:21 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Hi all, thanks for the responses. I have been in touch with a local
guitar store that has a few different amps and electro-acoustic
guitars and they have invited me to go down there with my guitar and
amp to try a few different combinations. I'll let you all know how i
get on.
Thanks again for the advice, i'll let you know what i find out.
For your interest, here is the response i got from the managing
director of AER in Germany regarding the problem. Either he needs to
brush up on his English, or get some manners, but here it is anyway:

'Thank you for the email, but honestly what am I supposed to do about
it. The amp seemingly works and sound fine!
The B-Band is know for low output volume and noise, booth can be heard
with the Cube. I do not know the Raven Labs products, but depending on
the internal level/gain set when you link these items can even worsen
the performance - leave it out of the signal chain to hear the
difference!
Have a go with other guitars and onboard pickups and address the Cube
directly via line input of channel one. Set preamp level on the guitar
and the gain of the amp to optimum match ( - amp should not clip with
the guitar-preamp not generating too much noise) and see for your self

 what is the amp and what is the guitar. May be hard to take, but may
be your guitar set-up does not suit the Cube.
.
The Cubes hisses a bit, true - every electronic device does so. The
question is to what degree and in what set up. AER product are quiet
in regards to high standards. Reasons for noise with AER products:
1) full coverage of the frequency range, you hear what other can not
perform
2) effect unit generates "digital" noise, put the effect return to
zero position to hear the difference
3) Mic channel XLR not used but gain on adds some noise too. If not in
use to zero position also.
4) Due to the used technology, all AER amps have the power amps full
up even if the master is at zero position.
5) Cube uses a coaxial speaker with a very strong tweeter. On axis and
close to the amp the hissing is stronger - however the Cube can
address a complete Club with transparent sounds, so stay away a
little!

There is no point of total silence unless you switch the amp off.

That's all, besides a technical defect which may happen, but as you
describe it it works fine with a different guitar.

Sorry, can not do more
best regards
Udo Roesner
Managing Director

AER GmbH&Co.KG
Christine Englerth Str.30
D-45665 Recklinghausen
Germany
Phone: +49 2361 891789
Fax : +49 2361 891791'

Tom Loredo <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message news:<<3E947404.7B67F3C8@astro...>>...
> The problem is very strange, but I think George offers a potentially
> promising insight here:
>
> > My immediate thought was that the relatively extended frequency response of
> > the acoustic amp (the Roland I remember as bright, but nothing to speak of
> > above 9-10kHz) might be fooling you. The noise might be present in both,
> > but you only hear it when there's a tweeter there to reproduce it.
>
> Note that, if true, this means a different acoustic amp will not fix things.
> Have you tried plugging it into a PA? That would rule out the whole amp
> issue.
>
> FWIW, Josh Pincus recently had an A1 preamp that was inherently noisy,
> and the folks at B-Band happily replaced it. It was a whopping amount
> of noise, though, so it was unambiguous that the preamp had a problem.
>
> Peace,
> Tom


From: Misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:55:43 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Hey You wrote:
> Yeah ok, i realised at the time it was probably just his english!
> Anyway, out of interest, anyone have any opinions on the Roland
> Acoustic Chorus..?
> Thanks.
>
> <ultraamps@aol...> (Ultraamps) wrote in message news:<<20030410091133.08710.00000679@mb-fj...>>...
>
>>Just a quick thought. I know Udo to be a wonderful person and believe what you
>>are hearing is an engineer's response coupled with his German background. And
>>trust me, I know engineering responses 8>)
>>
>>Not right, not wrong, just what is.
>>
>>The Doc
>

In the event you don't take Modulus' advice, try Udo's. Take
everything out of the signal chain. Plug the B-band output
straight into the AER. See if the noise is still there. If not
add the others back in one at a time with the gain on each set
right in the middle. That way you can isolate the source of the
noise.

However, as Modulus said, the error message indicates a problem
that and AER service center should address.

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


From: Modulus <darryl@redshift...>
Subject: Re: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: 10 Apr 2003 11:35:21 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

I've found Udo to be very helpful and congenial, in the past. Aside
from his tone--in this message--I think he makes good points.

At this point, I'd recommend getting the amp to an AER service center;
have them replace your fx board (the freeze/"22" problem indicates
it's one with a serious bug...); and have them test it for any
extrodinary noise problems--though, I doubt they'll find any.

I'd also consider another pickup/preamp combo, and find one that works
quietly with the IIa.


From: Hey You <pickproblem@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: AER Acousticube v Roland Jazz Chorus..?
Date: 11 Apr 2003 10:58:09 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Hey all, thanks again for the advice given.
Well, today i went to the guitar store with my guitar and amp and
tried a few things:
We plugged a factory made electro-acoustic into my amp and there was
no background noise/hiss at all. After plugging the said guitar into
their acoustic amp and having no problem, we then plugged my guitar
into one of their acoustic amps and bingo, the hiss was still there.
So from this we managed to ascertain that it is definitely my guitar
electronics that are causing the problem.
We proceeded to take apart my A2 preamp and fiddle with the 4 switches
that are inside it to see if this helped - previoulsy they were all
turned to the 'off' position - but this did nothing, not that we
really expected it to.
So from here, apart from getting in contact with the people at B-Band,
i don't know what there is left to do.
I shall let you all know what verdict they give. Didn't someone
mention earlier in the thread that someone they knew had a dodgy
B-Band preamp that was causing their problem? I think they said it was
replaced and all was fine. Hopefully something like this might be the
case as far as mine is concerned!
Cheers.

<darryl@redshift...> (Modulus) wrote in message news:<<60aa8f94.0304101035.34fe2b50@posting...>>...
> I've found Udo to be very helpful and congenial, in the past. Aside
> from his tone--in this message--I think he makes good points.
>
> At this point, I'd recommend getting the amp to an AER service center;
> have them replace your fx board (the freeze/"22" problem indicates
> it's one with a serious bug...); and have them test it for any
> extrodinary noise problems--though, I doubt they'll find any.
>
> I'd also consider another pickup/preamp combo, and find one that works
> quietly with the IIa.

G.A.S. Relief - K&K and Ultrasound [3]
From: Robert Van Niel <r.van.niel@worldnet...>
Subject: G.A.S. Relief - K&K and Ultrasound
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 03:01:16 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

In this case the "G" is for gear, not guitar. Although it's guitar gear
so maybe G.G.A.S. is more appropriate.

Anyhow, over the weekend, I installed a K&K Quantum Trinity System in my
Lakewood M54. It probably took longer than normal but this is my first
installation of an internal pickup system and I wanted to make sure it
was done right. I got a lot of good advice from the various threads
relating to pickups and pickup installations (thanks!). One of pieces
of advice was to buy some Duro "No Run" Quick Gel instead of using the
supplied super glue and to use latex gloves to keep things clean. It
made things MUCH easier to use the gel glue. Also I decided to opt for
the more permanent installation instead of using the supplied foil, so I
had to be extra careful (did a lot of practicing with the placement
before using the glue).

Actually after the transducers were installed (probably the hardest
part), it took a while to figure out where to put the mini-mic. Two
velcro strips are used to secure the mic which has a 5 inch gooseneck
for precise positioning. The diagram shows the velcro placed at the
back of the soundhole, but this seemed awkward on an X braced guitar. I
ended up putting it on a brace just on the high E side of the
soundhole. It seems to work pretty well there.

Also, this system uses their new Quantum Blender as a preamp instead of
the smaller two channel preamp. The sound is fantastic. I'm still
working on the best settings for this thing.

The other part of my G.G.A.S. relief was an Ultrasound AG-100DS2. Since
I just got it, I'll have more to say once I give it a test drive.

Rob


From: Lee D <mrbigaxeREMOVE@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: G.A.S. Relief - K&K and Ultrasound
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:15:49 -0500
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.

"Robert Van Niel" wrote

> snip

> The other part of my G.G.A.S. relief was an Ultrasound AG-100DS2. Since
> I just got it, I'll have more to say once I give it a test drive.
>

Hey Robert, you know GAS is bad when it makes you stutter. I would imagine
that you have a pretty good setup now.

Give that Ultrasound a good run and let us know. I have been thinking about
getting an AG-100DS2 also. I would have already if I hadn't had to spend a
thousand dollars getting my car fixed.

I know that the Ultrasound amps are designed to give a very realistic
acoustic sound, but I want to know about the volume that you can get out of
it. I will probably still go through the PA once I get an acoustic amp, but
every once in a while I may not have that option...so I need a fairly stout
amp. Does this amp have cajones?

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: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: G.A.S. Relief - K&K and Ultrasound
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 04:02:31 GMT

"Lee D" <<mrbigaxeREMOVE@yahoo...>> wrote in
news:<3e923fad_3@corp...>:

> "Robert Van Niel" wrote
>
>> snip
>
>> The other part of my G.G.A.S. relief was an Ultrasound AG-100DS2.
>> Since I just got it, I'll have more to say once I give it a test
>> drive.
>>
>
> Hey Robert, you know GAS is bad when it makes you stutter. I would
> imagine that you have a pretty good setup now.
>
> Give that Ultrasound a good run and let us know. I have been thinking
> about getting an AG-100DS2 also. I would have already if I hadn't had
> to spend a thousand dollars getting my car fixed.
>
> I know that the Ultrasound amps are designed to give a very realistic
> acoustic sound, but I want to know about the volume that you can get
> out of it. I will probably still go through the PA once I get an
> acoustic amp, but every once in a while I may not have that
> option...so I need a fairly stout amp. Does this amp have cajones?
>
> Lee D

If the 100 isn't loud enough for you, there's always the Pro 200!

Steve Hawkins

Ultrasound's Most Excellent Customer Service
From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Ultrasound's Most Excellent Customer Service
Date: 08 Apr 2003 19:38:54 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Fried my AG-50D & sent it to Iowa, it was fixxed the day they received it & on
it's way back to me.

Thanks Dan & Greg!

Amplification Problems - Follow Up... [2]
From: Modulus <darryl@redshift...>
Subject: Re: Amplification Problems - Follow Up...
Date: 8 Apr 2003 17:56:25 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

The freeze/"22" symptom is evidence of a bug in your effects board and
can only be remedied by sending the amp in to a AER service center for
an effects board replacement. According to AER, it occurs when the
amp is turned on for more than 30 minutes, turned off, then
immediately turned on again.

Hiss, again according to AER, is something that IIas produce more than
other types of amps because the power-amp runs at 100% all the time.
However, it should pass the described "master at 90%/both gains at
0%/audible hiss" test, for the mostpart. The return on the effects
should be at 0%, as well, since it introduces some hiss.

I, at one time, dealt with a hissing B-Band/AER IIa setup, but
replaced the pickup/preamp with something that produced a stronger
signal, and worked better with the IIa. If your clip light never
eluminates, that might indicate a too-weak signal for the IIa.

The manual (at least in English and French) is really, really poor.
But, from what I can tell, the channel 1 line-level input is stereo
for the purposes of using phantom power, not for splitting a
dual-source signal...or maybe I don't understand how you're hooking
things up.

In any case, hope some of this is helpful.


From: Modulus <darryl@redshift...>
Subject: Re: Amplification Problems - Follow Up...
Date: 8 Apr 2003 18:02:20 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Ignore the channel 1;line-level;phantom power comment. I missed the
Raven setup description.

AER 60 and Genz Benz
From: Carlos Alden <calden3@msn...>
Subject: AER 60 and Genz Benz
Date: 15 Apr 2003 13:14:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

John had asked about the comparisons between the GB Shenandoah and the
AER 60. Different sounding amps. The GB is 85 watts and can be LOUD
as you need it to be in just about any club. I have played it outside
and it sounds great. Very warm and smooth sound, like the SWR
California Blondes I have heard. I was EASILY able to get a good
sound without any preamp, just using the tone controls. The FX are
the Alesis chip set, and are excellent. It has a 12" speaker and a
separate horn tweeter.

The AER is only 60 watts so it'll probably be not as loud, and only
has an 8" speaker, so the bass will not be as intense, but it's a much
cleaner sound, much tighter bass, still plenty loud for indoor club
gigs. The amp has a way of projecting and dissipating the sound
almost omnidirectionally, so having it on a chair a few feet away is
like having a monitor as well.

The Genz Benz is a GREAT acoustic guitar amp for someone who does a
lot of voice with their guitar. Very flexible. It also has a
special jack designed for a (powered, I think) second speaker which
makes it a very good pa system for a solo performer in large clubs.

If anyone is further interested in this amp please email me off the
newsgroup. I am not trying to use this as a sell board, I just threw
it out there that I am going to sell it and would be happy if someone
on the list bought it rather than the mindless faceless soulless
entity of the Borg, er, I mean Ebay.

Carlos

Amp v. PA [2]
From: Brent Marchbanks <marchbanks@execu...>
Subject: Amp v. PA
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:18:48 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

I went through, I think, 5 different acoustic amps; including a black
one from the UK and a blonde one from calif before finding Ultrasound.

Now, NO KNOCK ON ULTRASOUND; it's the best on the market for less than a
zillion bucks. They'll take my AG 50s2 only when they pry it from my
old, arthritic fingers.

But this weekend I had an outdoor tent gig. I ended up playing my PUTW
27 and an external vocal mic (on the guitar) through a
chea...chea....inexpensive Squire (Fender's second line) p. a. WOW.
Full, rich sound with a whole range of timbres (not the sweet high end I
get through my Ultra, but close enough). And it filled the "room"
without blasting the front tables. A friend who has heard me play a lot
(and also knows my fetish for accurate amplification) commented on how
good it sounded.

My thoughts are 3: a. two sound sources (the two speakers) interact
synergistically for a "bigger" sound. b. The PUTW and and external mic
are a good combo: Wood and Air. c. I need an Ultrasound 50 slave amp.

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


From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amp v. PA
Date: 15 Apr 2003 22:48:57 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

"Brent Marchbanks" <marchbanks@execu...> wrote:

<snip>

>c. I need an Ultrasound 50 slave amp.

modify and stick 'em up on poles like Sherman does. I can't imagine even
Fender's high end P.A. beating that.

mk

>I went through, I think, 5 different acoustic amps; including a black
>one from the UK and a blonde one from calif before finding Ultrasound.
>
>Now, NO KNOCK ON ULTRASOUND; it's the best on the market for less than a
>zillion bucks. They'll take my AG 50s2 only when they pry it from my
>old, arthritic fingers.
>
>But this weekend I had an outdoor tent gig. I ended up playing my PUTW
>27 and an external vocal mic (on the guitar) through a
>chea...chea....inexpensive Squire (Fender's second line) p. a. WOW.
>Full, rich sound with a whole range of timbres (not the sweet high end I
>get through my Ultra, but close enough). And it filled the "room"
>without blasting the front tables. A friend who has heard me play a lot
>(and also knows my fetish for accurate amplification) commented on how
>good it sounded.
>
>My thoughts are 3: a. two sound sources (the two speakers) interact
>synergistically for a "bigger" sound. b. The PUTW and and external mic
>are a good combo: Wood and Air. c. I need an Ultrasound 50 slave amp.

Best acoustic amp with a mic input [15]
From: Bradford Trainham <btrainham@austin...>
Subject: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:44:11 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - Texas

Hi,
I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
warranted.
I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
Acoustasonic series.
Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps in
a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
I'm visually impaired, and I've always dreamed of having a good amp/pa
combo small enough for me to
transport to a gig in a taxi, and to just to be able to say to the
hosting venue, "Point me to the stage, and show me where to plug in,
and I'm set."
Can any of these amps really take the place of say a standard small
club house pa?
Thanks,
Brad Trainham


From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:53:54 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:44:11 GMT, Bradford Trainham
<<btrainham@austin...>> brewed up the following, and served it to
the group:

>Hi,
>I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
>warranted.
>I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
>Acoustasonic series.
>Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps in
>a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
>on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
>I'm visually impaired, and I've always dreamed of having a good amp/pa
>combo small enough for me to
>transport to a gig in a taxi, and to just to be able to say to the
>hosting venue, "Point me to the stage, and show me where to plug in,
>and I'm set."
>Can any of these amps really take the place of say a standard small
>club house pa?
>Thanks,
>Brad Trainham

Hey, Brad, welcome to the monkeyhouse. I've used the Fender
Acoustasonic Jr. for a few years now; it is a really nice little rig.
It will work for a small room. No direct ability to hook up an
extension speaker. Runs 40 watts--like I said, enough power for a
small room--but ONLY a small room. The pub I was playing in--one
night, they took the PA I always used and set it up for a band playing
downstairs. (Thoughtful of them to share that with me in advance...)
So I hooked up my AJ, plugged in my mic, plugged in my guitar, and did
the gig. It filled the room--no substitute for a good PA, but a
serviceable substitute for NO PA. And it is (relatively) portable.
Onboard effects are reverb and chorus; both are pretty darned good,
especially for the price. No feedback problems that I recall--I just
would have really liked some more power.

The Ultrasounds are REALLY nice. One of these days, I'm gonna trade
up to one of the US 100 watt rigs, with the extension speaker. But
I'll have to be gigging to justify it.

If you can swing it, a small PA will sound a lot better--but the AJ
will work in a pinch. Don't overlook Ultrasound--they are great amps.

HTH.

-----
"Do we find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground

 Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."
            --Crosby, Stills, and Nash
       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: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:19:33 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Bradford Trainham wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
> warranted.
> I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
> Acoustasonic series.
> Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps in
> a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
> on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
>

The Marshall has phase reversal but no mid-EQ (which is a useful feeback
killer). However, we used this amp for Debra Cowan's gig at Kelso Folk
Club last week and for the last solo performer too, and the result has
been 100 per cent good sound. Normally we use a PA, but the AS50R has
been so good at getting the right volume without feedback, we will
probably keep using it.

The only thing I do is to mount it on a monitor stand (a kind of tilted
frame which lifts the amp ten inches off the ground, and aims it
slightly upwards). This makes a HUGE difference to the sound, removing a
load of unwanted bass, and vocals in particular gain real clarity.

Failing that, you can always stick it on a chair or table!

David


From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 06:27:33 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico

Brad,

I have a Marshall AS50R and have gigged with it successfully at a few
smaller venues (~ 50 people). As long as the unit was slightly forward of my
microphone placement, I found no problems with feedback (at least nothing I
couldn't dial out with the notch filter). The sound was quite good and more
than loud enough for a small venue. I've also used it outside at small
garden parties and such with equal success. When I've brought it out with
the band (about twice), I've used it as a monitor and fed the amp FOH
through the PA. While the mix was good, I don't fancy bringing it out
regularly...I have enough gear to cart around. The reverb is not bad and the
chorus quite nice. The fact that you can regulate the amount of each
independently in each channel is very useful. All in all, this is a really
nice acoustic amplifier that doesn't cost a bundle. My only beef is that it
only has a bass and treble EQ...no mid...which means adjusting the midrange
has to be done on your instrument pre-amp (or you can fiddle with the bass
and treble until you get near to the sound you want). Hope this helps.

Cheers, JWP

--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.

 Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm

"Bradford Trainham" <<btrainham@austin...>> wrote in message
news:<gl2p9vc86fmb7rc86k5hvi60acne5v232p@4ax...>...
> Hi,
> I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
> warranted.
> I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
> Acoustasonic series.
> Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps in
> a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
> on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
> I'm visually impaired, and I've always dreamed of having a good amp/pa
> combo small enough for me to
> transport to a gig in a taxi, and to just to be able to say to the
> hosting venue, "Point me to the stage, and show me where to plug in,
> and I'm set."
> Can any of these amps really take the place of say a standard small
> club house pa?
> Thanks,
> Brad Trainham
>


From: Ken Cashion <kcashion@datasync...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:30:15 GMT
Organization: Datasync

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 06:27:33 -0400, "CyberSerf"
<<nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>> wrote:

>Brad,
>
>I have a Marshall AS50R and have gigged with it successfully at a few
>smaller venues (~ 50 people).

	Interesting post but the above I found intriguing.  I am
assuming the AS50R is 50 watts.
	I know that there are a lot of things which determine the
amount of wattage one should use, however, a lot of gigging is done in
small and sometimes, acoustically similar places.
	What about a Wattage Rule Of Thumb (besides "You Can Never
Have Too Much"). I was thinking more like -- "A Watt A Person."

	Ken Cashion, someone who generally knows what he is talking
about...but not this time.

> As long as the unit was slightly forward of my
>microphone placement, I found no problems with feedback (at least nothing I
>couldn't dial out with the notch filter). The sound was quite good and more
>than loud enough for a small venue. I've also used it outside at small
>garden parties and such with equal success. When I've brought it out with
>the band (about twice), I've used it as a monitor and fed the amp FOH
>through the PA. While the mix was good, I don't fancy bringing it out
>regularly...I have enough gear to cart around. The reverb is not bad and the
>chorus quite nice. The fact that you can regulate the amount of each
>independently in each channel is very useful. All in all, this is a really
>nice acoustic amplifier that doesn't cost a bundle. My only beef is that it
>only has a bass and treble EQ...no mid...which means adjusting the midrange
>has to be done on your instrument pre-amp (or you can fiddle with the bass
>and treble until you get near to the sound you want). Hope this helps.
>
>Cheers, JWP
>
>--
>---
>The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
>As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
> Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm
>
>
>"Bradford Trainham" <<btrainham@austin...>> wrote in message
>news:<gl2p9vc86fmb7rc86k5hvi60acne5v232p@4ax...>...
>> Hi,
>> I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
>> warranted.
>> I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
>> Acoustasonic series.
>> Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps in
>> a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
>> on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
>> I'm visually impaired, and I've always dreamed of having a good amp/pa
>> combo small enough for me to
>> transport to a gig in a taxi, and to just to be able to say to the
>> hosting venue, "Point me to the stage, and show me where to plug in,
>> and I'm set."
>> Can any of these amps really take the place of say a standard small
>> club house pa?
>> Thanks,
>> Brad Trainham
>>
>
>


From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:36:38 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Bradford Trainham" <<btrainham@austin...>> wrote in message
news:<gl2p9vc86fmb7rc86k5hvi60acne5v232p@4ax...>...
> Hi,
> I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
> warranted.
> I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
> Acoustasonic series.
> Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps in
> a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
> on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
> I'm visually impaired, and I've always dreamed of having a good amp/pa
> combo small enough for me to
> transport to a gig in a taxi, and to just to be able to say to the
> hosting venue, "Point me to the stage, and show me where to plug in,
> and I'm set."
> Can any of these amps really take the place of say a standard small
> club house pa?
> Thanks,
> Brad Trainham

Both of those are pretty good, but I prefer the Ultrasound equipment. They
are quiet, clean and small.
I'd suggest an AG50DS2 and a powered extension cabinet AG50E.
Even without a mixer, you'll have a two channel, mini PA.
Add a small mixer and you increase the number of inputs available.
Good luck,
Bob Dorgan


From: JGreen <john_k_green@lycos...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: 16 Apr 2003 06:28:06 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Hi Brad,

I use a Centaur acoustic PA amplifier. (www.centauramp.com). I have
the 60watt 12" speaker combo, but they come in several confiurations.
The sound is quite clear. It has reverb only. It has an input for
guitar, xlr for your mic and an input for a cd player etc.

at first I set it up on a keyboard stand but that put it at the same
level as the mic, this caused feedback issues. moving it down to a
chair corrected that problem.

nice one piece PA .


From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:01:38 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico

Ken,

The AS50R is indeed a 50 Watt amplifier....but I think that the watt versus
room size similarities in my post are coincidental. The difference in volume
between a 30 Watt amplifier (peak output) and a 50 watt is only negligible
and barely perceptible. In order to make a perceptible change (at least 3db
for most humans) you need to double the output to 60 watts. If you want to
double the "loudness" or volume you'd need an amp that is roughly 10 times
more powerful which basically translates into a 300 Watt amplifier. Don't
know about you, but I have enough problems carting my 100 Watt Twin Reverb.
Having a more powerful amplifier does have one important benefit in that it
increases the head room (the amount of gain you can add before the tubes
start to saturate and distort). For a PA, you can certainly do most venues
with 500 Watts on two sides (Main/Monitor), with a bridge if you need it
(even 200 Watts per side will do for smaller clubs), but many prefer a
little more headroom and settle on 1000 Watts. This allows you to really
have good EQ control, since your system is not being pushed to hard and so
you have a very clean signal to work with.

One of the problems with using these smaller amplifiers in a gig for both
guitar and vocals is that the more people in the place, the more bodies are
interfering with (and absorbing) the sounds wave emanating from the single
source (which is typically low to the floor). As you move from the source,
the actual volume FOH becomes annemic since the rate of dispersion for the
different frequencies is not evenly distributed...so the volume is not only
lower, the sound is muddier and it becomes harder to "hear" clearly and
cleanly. This is why you'll find many players prefer to place the PA
speakers on a stand, just above the heads of the patrons...it can travel
unimpeded right to the back.

Here's a good document on the subject you might want to look at:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/Pioneer/Files/10027.pdf

Hope this helps,

Cheers, CS
--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.

 Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm

"Ken Cashion" <<kcashion@datasync...>> wrote in message
news:<3e9d59a9.5555444@news...>...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 06:27:33 -0400, "CyberSerf"
> <<nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>> wrote:
>
> >Brad,
> >
> >I have a Marshall AS50R and have gigged with it successfully at a few
> >smaller venues (~ 50 people).
>
> Interesting post but the above I found intriguing. I am
> assuming the AS50R is 50 watts.
> I know that there are a lot of things which determine the
> amount of wattage one should use, however, a lot of gigging is done in
> small and sometimes, acoustically similar places.
> What about a Wattage Rule Of Thumb (besides "You Can Never
> Have Too Much"). I was thinking more like -- "A Watt A Person."
>
> Ken Cashion, someone who generally knows what he is talking
> about...but not this time.
>
>
> > As long as the unit was slightly forward of my
> >microphone placement, I found no problems with feedback (at least nothing
I
> >couldn't dial out with the notch filter). The sound was quite good and
more
> >than loud enough for a small venue. I've also used it outside at small
> >garden parties and such with equal success. When I've brought it out with
> >the band (about twice), I've used it as a monitor and fed the amp FOH
> >through the PA. While the mix was good, I don't fancy bringing it out
> >regularly...I have enough gear to cart around. The reverb is not bad and
the
> >chorus quite nice. The fact that you can regulate the amount of each
> >independently in each channel is very useful. All in all, this is a
really
> >nice acoustic amplifier that doesn't cost a bundle. My only beef is that
it
> >only has a bass and treble EQ...no mid...which means adjusting the
midrange
> >has to be done on your instrument pre-amp (or you can fiddle with the
bass
> >and treble until you get near to the sound you want). Hope this helps.
> >
> >Cheers, JWP
> >
> >--
> >---
> >The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
> >As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
> > Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm
> >
> >
> >"Bradford Trainham" <<btrainham@austin...>> wrote in message
> >news:<gl2p9vc86fmb7rc86k5hvi60acne5v232p@4ax...>...
> >> Hi,
> >> I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
> >> warranted.
> >> I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
> >> Acoustasonic series.
> >> Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps in
> >> a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
> >> on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
> >> I'm visually impaired, and I've always dreamed of having a good amp/pa
> >> combo small enough for me to
> >> transport to a gig in a taxi, and to just to be able to say to the
> >> hosting venue, "Point me to the stage, and show me where to plug in,
> >> and I'm set."
> >> Can any of these amps really take the place of say a standard small
> >> club house pa?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Brad Trainham
> >>
> >
> >
>


From: Charlie <charlie@texasbluesman...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:52:12 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - Texas

For - portability, versatility and features - it's really hard to beat the
Peavey Escort 2000 portable PA for acoustic instruments plus vocals .

1. 150W stereo mixer - 75W per side
2. 5 channels - 4 fully separate inputs (w/bass/treble/gain) plus 1 stereo
aux in
3. Switchable to 150W mono
4. 10 " woofer plus horn tweeter each side
5. Includes collapsible and stowed speaker stands (extend to 5 1/2 ft tall)
, Peavey mic, all cables etc everything in one "rolling-on-wheels" PA system
6. Sets up in 5 mins
7. Takes down in 5 mins
8. Total weight is about 55 lbs w/sturdy handles and latches and wheels too.
9. Can roll on wheels like an airport suitcase - w/one hand
10. Fits inside my 99' Toyota Corolla! (backseat or trunk)

Specs, pics, ordering info and Peavey Escort 2000 homepage here

1. http://www.texasbluesman.net/links.html

--

- Charlie

- Charlie's BLUES Songs
- Hi-fi mp3 streaming media and downloads

   http://www.texasbluesman.net
   http://www.mp3.com/texasbluesman

"CyberSerf" <<nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>> wrote in message
news:w_ena.3168$<KH1.481903@news20...>...
> Ken,
>
> The AS50R is indeed a 50 Watt amplifier....but I think that the watt
versus
> room size similarities in my post are coincidental. The difference in
volume
> between a 30 Watt amplifier (peak output) and a 50 watt is only negligible
> and barely perceptible. In order to make a perceptible change (at least
3db
> for most humans) you need to double the output to 60 watts. If you want to
> double the "loudness" or volume you'd need an amp that is roughly 10 times
> more powerful which basically translates into a 300 Watt amplifier. Don't
> know about you, but I have enough problems carting my 100 Watt Twin
Reverb.
> Having a more powerful amplifier does have one important benefit in that
it
> increases the head room (the amount of gain you can add before the tubes
> start to saturate and distort). For a PA, you can certainly do most venues
> with 500 Watts on two sides (Main/Monitor), with a bridge if you need it
> (even 200 Watts per side will do for smaller clubs), but many prefer a
> little more headroom and settle on 1000 Watts. This allows you to really
> have good EQ control, since your system is not being pushed to hard and so
> you have a very clean signal to work with.
>
> One of the problems with using these smaller amplifiers in a gig for both
> guitar and vocals is that the more people in the place, the more bodies
are
> interfering with (and absorbing) the sounds wave emanating from the single
> source (which is typically low to the floor). As you move from the source,
> the actual volume FOH becomes annemic since the rate of dispersion for the
> different frequencies is not evenly distributed...so the volume is not
only
> lower, the sound is muddier and it becomes harder to "hear" clearly and
> cleanly. This is why you'll find many players prefer to place the PA
> speakers on a stand, just above the heads of the patrons...it can travel
> unimpeded right to the back.
>
> Here's a good document on the subject you might want to look at:
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/Pioneer/Files/10027.pdf
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Cheers, CS
> --
> ---
> The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
> As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
> Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm
>
>
> "Ken Cashion" <<kcashion@datasync...>> wrote in message
> news:<3e9d59a9.5555444@news...>...
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 06:27:33 -0400, "CyberSerf"
> > <<nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>> wrote:
> >
> > >Brad,
> > >
> > >I have a Marshall AS50R and have gigged with it successfully at a few
> > >smaller venues (~ 50 people).
> >
> > Interesting post but the above I found intriguing. I am
> > assuming the AS50R is 50 watts.
> > I know that there are a lot of things which determine the
> > amount of wattage one should use, however, a lot of gigging is done in
> > small and sometimes, acoustically similar places.
> > What about a Wattage Rule Of Thumb (besides "You Can Never
> > Have Too Much"). I was thinking more like -- "A Watt A Person."
> >
> > Ken Cashion, someone who generally knows what he is talking
> > about...but not this time.
> >
> >
> > > As long as the unit was slightly forward of my
> > >microphone placement, I found no problems with feedback (at least
nothing
> I
> > >couldn't dial out with the notch filter). The sound was quite good and
> more
> > >than loud enough for a small venue. I've also used it outside at small
> > >garden parties and such with equal success. When I've brought it out
with
> > >the band (about twice), I've used it as a monitor and fed the amp FOH
> > >through the PA. While the mix was good, I don't fancy bringing it out
> > >regularly...I have enough gear to cart around. The reverb is not bad
and
> the
> > >chorus quite nice. The fact that you can regulate the amount of each
> > >independently in each channel is very useful. All in all, this is a
> really
> > >nice acoustic amplifier that doesn't cost a bundle. My only beef is
that
> it
> > >only has a bass and treble EQ...no mid...which means adjusting the
> midrange
> > >has to be done on your instrument pre-amp (or you can fiddle with the
> bass
> > >and treble until you get near to the sound you want). Hope this helps.
> > >
> > >Cheers, JWP
> > >
> > >--
> > >---
> > >The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
> > >As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
> > > Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >"Bradford Trainham" <<btrainham@austin...>> wrote in message
> > >news:<gl2p9vc86fmb7rc86k5hvi60acne5v232p@4ax...>...
> > >> Hi,
> > >> I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
> > >> warranted.
> > >> I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
> > >> Acoustasonic series.
> > >> Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps
in
> > >> a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
> > >> on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
> > >> I'm visually impaired, and I've always dreamed of having a good
amp/pa
> > >> combo small enough for me to
> > >> transport to a gig in a taxi, and to just to be able to say to the
> > >> hosting venue, "Point me to the stage, and show me where to plug in,
> > >> and I'm set."
> > >> Can any of these amps really take the place of say a standard small
> > >> club house pa?
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Brad Trainham
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>


From: Pete Greenwood <peteSPICED-HAMgreenwood@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:26:39 -0500

"Ken Cashion" <<kcashion@datasync...>> wrote in message
news:<3e9d59a9.5555444@news...>...

<s>

> Interesting post but the above I found intriguing. I am
> assuming the AS50R is 50 watts.
> I know that there are a lot of things which determine the
> amount of wattage one should use, however, a lot of gigging is done in
> small and sometimes, acoustically similar places.
> What about a Wattage Rule Of Thumb (besides "You Can Never
> Have Too Much"). I was thinking more like -- "A Watt A Person."
>

<s>

Hi Ken. Any rule of thumb you come up with for wattage will be thrown off
by the speakers and their varying sensitivity.

To draw a parallel, I own two home audio systems. One uses a 200W/ch Mark
Levinson power amp feeding a pair of 6" B&W speakers. The other system has
a TPOS Yamaha amp driving 100W/ch into a pair of 10" TPOS Yamaha speakers.

The Yamaha system, despite pushing only half the wattage, is actually
louder. Why? The speakers are much more sensitive.

A wattage rule of thumb would tell me to use the Levinson/B&W system for
larger rooms/audiences.

Hope this makes sense.

Pete


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:36:25 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Pete Greenwood wrote:
>
> Hi Ken. Any rule of thumb you come up with for wattage will be thrown off
> by the speakers and their varying sensitivity.

[snip subsequent very valid observations]

Good points here. Just in case anyone goes looking at speaker spec
sheets to explore this further, the relevant parameter is called
"efficiency," not "sensitivity." Sensitivity is the corresponding
parameter at the other end of the signal chain (mics!).

Peace,
Tom


From: Glen Eric <strum4u@msn...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: 16 Apr 2003 19:34:00 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Hello,

About 6 years ago I took a Shure SM-58, armed with my acoustic guitar,
and went from one music store to another trying out different acoustic
amps with
this purpose in mind: to find a piece of portable equipment that would
serve as a small PA.

I tried a Peavey Acoustic, Centaur, Trace Elliot, and both a 60 watt
and 125 watt Crate acoustic amp.

I had read a great review in Acoustic guitar magazine that rated the
Seymour Duncan Tara amp as being rated the best acoustic amp at the
time, yet I couldn't find one at the time in any of the stores.

Of the four brands I tried, I liked the Peavey the least while singing
with the mic. The Trace Elliot had some nice features, but it wasn't
a big enough sound for me. I thought the Centaur sounded pretty good,
and may have bought that until I tried out a couple of the Crates.
The CA-60D is a very nice sounding amp for both guitar and
accompanying vocals. There is plenty of EQ control for the guitar
channel, with I believe, Bass and Treble adjustment for the Mic
channel. The digital effects sound very nice, especially chorus for
the guitar.

I ended up buying the more powerful Crate CA-125D, with digital
effects, and I've never regretted my purchase. The amp has two 10"
woofers plus a 2" tweeter, each powered by an individual amplifier; 50
watts for each of the 10" drivers, with a 25 watt amp for the tweeter.

I have used this amp as a mini PA, and the both the XLR and 1/4" line
outputs can be used to feed the signal to an auxillary amp to drive
another speaker or two for more enveloping sound. The CA-125D
features a 5-band graphic EQ, so I generally set this first for the
mic, as I am left with extensive EQ controls for the guitar channel,
such as Low, Mid, High, with a contour control and adjustable notch
filter for the mid frequencies.

The Crate is backed by a 5 year warranty for parts and labor, which is
very generous and greatly appreciated.

I would also like to hear the Fender amps, as they came out a year or
so after I purchased my Crate. And I've also heard great things about
the Ultrasounds, but I am pretty sure that they are considerably more
expensive than the Crate acoustic amplifier line, the latter of which
I recommend any guitarist. vocalist check out before making their
final purchase decision.

Respectfully,

Glen Eric

<john_k_green@lycos...> (JGreen) wrote in message news:<<cb8a2368.0304160528.6ebfd8ca@posting...>>...
> Hi Brad,
>
>
> I use a Centaur acoustic PA amplifier. (www.centauramp.com). I have
> the 60watt 12" speaker combo, but they come in several confiurations.
> The sound is quite clear. It has reverb only. It has an input for
> guitar, xlr for your mic and an input for a cd player etc.
>
> at first I set it up on a keyboard stand but that put it at the same
> level as the mic, this caused feedback issues. moving it down to a
> chair corrected that problem.
>
>
>
> nice one piece PA .


From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: 17 Apr 2003 13:54:21 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Bradford Trainham <<btrainham@austin...>> wrote in message news:<<gl2p9vc86fmb7rc86k5hvi60acne5v232p@4ax...>>...
> Hi,
> I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
> warranted.
> I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
> Acoustasonic series.
> Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps in
> a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
> on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
> I'm visually impaired, and I've always dreamed of having a good amp/pa
> combo small enough for me to
> transport to a gig in a taxi, and to just to be able to say to the
> hosting venue, "Point me to the stage, and show me where to plug in,
> and I'm set."
> Can any of these amps really take the place of say a standard small
> club house pa?
> Thanks,
> Brad Trainham

Hi Brad,

If you go to this page on Acoustic Guitar Magazine's website, you can
download a pdf file of Teja Gerken's recent review of eight popular
acoustic guitar amps:
http://www.acousticguitar.com/Gear/index.shtml

I found it pretty interesting. The amps were tested for both guitar
and vocal use.

Gary Hall


From: Misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:58:54 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Tom Loredo wrote:
> Pete Greenwood wrote:
>
>>Hi Ken. Any rule of thumb you come up with for wattage will be thrown off
>>by the speakers and their varying sensitivity.
>
>
> [snip subsequent very valid observations]
>
> Good points here. Just in case anyone goes looking at speaker spec
> sheets to explore this further, the relevant parameter is called
> "efficiency," not "sensitivity." Sensitivity is the corresponding
> parameter at the other end of the signal chain (mics!).
>
> Peace,
> Tom

While I'm sure your are right, I think I recall Stereo Review
discussing the "Sensitivity" of speakers to a 1-watt, 2.83-volt
test signal in terms of the db of the output tone at one meter,
on axis. I may be wrong, it's been a while since Stereo Review,
per se, died.

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


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Best acoustic amp with a mic input
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:02:07 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Misifus wrote:
>
> Tom Loredo wrote:
> > Pete Greenwood wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Ken. Any rule of thumb you come up with for wattage will be thrown off
> >>by the speakers and their varying sensitivity.
> >
> >
> > [snip subsequent very valid observations]
> >
> > Good points here. Just in case anyone goes looking at speaker spec
> > sheets to explore this further, the relevant parameter is called
> > "efficiency," not "sensitivity." Sensitivity is the corresponding
> > parameter at the other end of the signal chain (mics!).
> >
> > Peace,
> > Tom
>
> While I'm sure your are right, I think I recall Stereo Review
> discussing the "Sensitivity" of speakers to a 1-watt, 2.83-volt
> test signal in terms of the db of the output tone at one meter,
> on axis. I may be wrong, it's been a while since Stereo Review,
> per se, died.

Ralph-

Thanks for pointing this out. I did some digging, and yes, this is
a standard loudspeaker rating. The Rane Audio Reference gives a
summary of five ways "sensitivity" is used in specifying audio gear:

http://www.rane.com/par-s.html

There is an unfortunate error in the loudspeaker sensitivity definition
on this page, though (see below).

Stereophile magazine has archived discussion of why sensitivity is
a more meaningful spec than efficiency in most practical circumstances:

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?272:5
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?99:2

"Efficiency" is always an energy or power ratio; in the case of
speakers,

   efficiency = acoustic power out / electrical power in
"Sensitivity" is a more generic term, referring to more general
output/input ratios. For speakers, it is:

   sensitivity = acoustic power out with 2.83 V rms signal in
The "2.83 V" value is chosen because it corresponds to the voltage
needed to generate 1 W of electrical power into an 8 ohm load, a
fairly standard impedance for speakers. The difference between
the definitions arises because speakers do have different impedances,
and a particular speaker has a frequency-dependent impedance. Since
most amp circuitry nowadays is designed to produce a certain voltage
output at a given setting, the more relevant spec is sensitivity
(i.e., if you switch from one speaker to another, keeping the amp settings
constant, the voltage across the speaker will not change, even if
the impedance of the new speaker is different---provided it's not so
low that you blow out the amp!).

The Rane reference gives a speaker sensitivity definition in terms
of a power ratio---i.e., they give the "efficiency" definition.
BTW, Ralph, in your definition you combined both the sensitivity and
efficiency definitions---just omit the "1 watt" and you're spot-on.

Thanks for pointing this out---I didn't know this stuff before!

Peace,
Tom

Ultrasound
From: Brent Marchbanks <marchbanks@execu...>
Subject: Ultrasound
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:43:29 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

I'm a big fan of Ultrasound. In regard to mic imputs, let me point out:
Ultrasound uses "real" tweeters-not piezo plastic- but domes; like in
your stereo system. ='s smoother high end.

"Bradford Trainham" <<btrainham@austin...>> wrote in message
news:<gl2p9vc86fmb7rc86k5hvi60acne5v232p@4ax...>

> Hi,
> I'm looking for an amp I could use as a small pa when such is
> warranted.
> I've been reading about the Marshall AS50R, and the Fender
> Acoustasonic series.
> Does anyone have any experience actually using either of these amps in
> a solo act setting, and if so, can you tell me about the
> on board affects, feedback issues, etc?
> I'm visually impaired, and I've always dreamed of having a good amp/pa
> combo small enough for me to
> transport to a gig in a taxi, and to just to be able to say to the
> hosting venue, "Point me to the stage, and show me where to plug in,
> and I'm set."
> Can any of these amps really take the place of say a standard small
> club house pa?
> Thanks,
> Brad Trainham

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

got AER Compact 60
From: Hank Alinger <hoink2@comcast...>
Subject: Re: got AER Compact 60
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:00:10 -0400

Carlos:

If you don't mind, what did you pay for the AER 60? (and did you get the
battery pack?)

By the way, Tommy Emmanuel swears by the AER 60 and drags one literally
around the world with him. He really likes a bright, punchy sound.

Hank

Carlos Alden wrote:

> Hey all:
>
> I recently travelled to Oregon for a brief spring break with my two
> kids. While on the way to the coast I stopped in Portland at Pioneer
> music and tried the AER Compact 60 and Ultrasound 50 with the mic
> input and dig reverb. I was fortunate to have my guitar with me
> (Tippin OMT with Baggs RT) and spent about an hour or more trying
> both. I decided I just had to get rid of my Genz-Benz Shenandoah due
> to the weight of 45 lbs. I have decided not to use it for that
> reason in recent solo gigs, and that's NOT a good sign.
>
> Love both amps. Very good sound from both, and although I'd like a
> bit more volume "just in case" I realized that this is about the
> perfect size for me, because I can always haul along one of my JBL Eon
> 15s in case I need more whompf. (By the way, the Eons, self-powered
> weigh just 37 lbs. and are easier to carry than the Shenanadoah.)
>
> I went with the AER because the sound is a tad better for my playing
> style and guitar and pickup configuration. The US sounded warmer and
> slightly fuller, but I preferred the tighter sound of the AER. Kinda
> like the difference between and OM and dreadnought. That and the
> weight difference made the price difference seem bearable.
>
> So I got to the beach house and started playing. The reverb
> malfunctioned - it would sometimes be on, then upon cutting the power
> and turning it on again a bit later it would be gone, regardless of
> the controls. So I returned it to Pioneer music when I drove
> through, and Kurt promptly sent it back to the US distributorship for
> repair and it will be drop-shipped to me from there in a week or so.
> (he was willing to do whatever I wanted by the way - great service
> there.) They had never heard of reverb problems in any AER, so I'm
> trusting that this is a very unique problem and the fix will be a true
> fix. The amp really does sound great and will be perfect for my solo
> gigs of kids' music.
>
> BY the way, I was very happy to do business with them. Portland is
> only six hours' drive from me, and by buying it there I saved shipping
> (well, for the AER puny little thing that's no big deal) and sales tax
> (!!!!!!!!!). Plus I get to visit Powell's as well.
>
> Carlos

Building a"P.A." onto my amp. [4]
From: Brent Marchbanks <marchbanks@execu...>
Subject: Building a"P.A." onto my amp.
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:09:18 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

I recently enthralled y'all with my tale of playing through an
inexpensive PA system and being whelmed (if not overwhelmed) with the
quality and fullness of the tone and the way the sound carried out into
the room.

So rather than get a P. A. or a slave amp(too logical) I have the bright
idea of adding powered speakers to my Ultrasound AG 50S2D.

Will this work???

How 'bout powered home stereo speakers? How 'bout PA moniters?

Or, do I need to be told about impedence, OHMS, line levels and all that
stuff that usually doom my electronic ideas?

My next question: Why am I compelled to use these stupid contractions
(e.g. "y'all") when I e-mail strangers? Some sort of faux intimacy,
perhaps.
But please don't respond to this question unless you have some
imput on the first ones.

Cheers,

Brent

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


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Building a"P.A." onto my amp.
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:32:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Brent Marchbanks" <<marchbanks@execu...>> wrote in message
news:<9567244edaef3a66d248290ad2d4bee0.115183@mygate...>...
> I recently enthralled y'all with my tale of playing through an
> inexpensive PA system and being whelmed (if not overwhelmed) with the
> quality and fullness of the tone and the way the sound carried out into
> the room.
>
> So rather than get a P. A. or a slave amp(too logical) I have the bright
> idea of adding powered speakers to my Ultrasound AG 50S2D.
>
> Will this work???
>
anything that can supply a line or mic level signal will drive most powered
speakers just fine
I would consider it a bit "limiting as far as control goes but you will be
able to make loud with it
George


From: Pete Greenwood <thumbSPAMBLOCKpick@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Building a"P.A." onto my amp.
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:42:47 -0500

Sure. I've done it with nice results using a pair of Mackie SRM450 powered
speakers, and used the Ultrasound as a monitor. Depending on the speakers,
you may need a Y-adaptor (one TRS to a pair of XLR). Use the stereo
line-out on the amp. Or, if you're running a mono signal, use the mono
line-out and daisy-chain the speakers.

> How 'bout powered home stereo speakers? How 'bout PA moniters?
>

I wouldn't use home stereo speakers without some sort of limiter, as they
tend to be more delicately built. PA monitors should be fine as long as
they're powered.

> Or, do I need to be told about impedence, OHMS, line levels and all that
> stuff that usually doom my electronic ideas?
>

Nope, just hook it up and go.

Keep in mind that the PA system's preamp and EQ could have contributed
greatly to the improvement in tone. So just because you can use your
Ultrasound to drive powered speakers, don't assume it'll sound the same.

> My next question: Why am I compelled to use these stupid contractions
> (e.g. "y'all") when I e-mail strangers? Some sort of faux intimacy,
> perhaps.

Couldn't say.

Pete


From: Michael McCollum <eadric@visi...>
Subject: Re: Building a"P.A." onto my amp.
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:57:21 -0400

"Brent Marchbanks" <<marchbanks@execu...>> wrote in message
news:<9567244edaef3a66d248290ad2d4bee0.115183@mygate...>...
> I recently enthralled y'all with my tale of playing through an
> inexpensive PA system and being whelmed (if not overwhelmed) with the
> quality and fullness of the tone and the way the sound carried out into
> the room.
>
> So rather than get a P. A. or a slave amp(too logical) I have the bright
> idea of adding powered speakers to my Ultrasound AG 50S2D.
>
> Will this work???
>
> How 'bout powered home stereo speakers? How 'bout PA moniters?

How 'bout adding UltraSound's matching powered extension cabs for your DS2?

>
> Or, do I need to be told about impedence, OHMS, line levels and all that
> stuff that usually doom my electronic ideas?
>

Nah..just plug and play and don't let Sparky near it.

>
>
> My next question: Why am I compelled to use these stupid contractions
> (e.g. "y'all") when I e-mail strangers? Some sort of faux intimacy,
> perhaps.
> But please don't respond to this question unless you have some
> imput on the first ones.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brent

You are simply trying to give the impression that you're just a "good 'ol
boy"....
The "Aw shucks" (shuffle foot) mode works for me. In Dorgan's case it gives
the appearance of an IQ ten points higher.

Mike (aw shucks...t'weren't nuthin')

Acoustic amp/pa [12]
From: singer <singer@catfishmusic...>
Subject: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: 27 Apr 2003 05:58:02 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Any recommendations for a solid, dependable amp for acoustic guitar
and one mic? I usually play fairly small rooms, so firepower isn't
necessary. I've used a Fender Acoustisonic for a couple of years now,
but I'm tired of toting it back and forth to the music store to have
it's reverb tank replaced (and, anyway, the reverb on this was crappy
to start with).
I'd love to find something relatively light, and not terribly
expensive. I've tried the Centaur Acoustic PA, and I love it, but they
cost an arm and a leg. Anything similar out there, but hopefully a
little cheaper?
Thanks.


From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 09:18:18 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico

I like the Marshall AS50R. If you need the headroom, they also make an 80
watt version called...wait for it... the AS80R. The 50 Watt version I own
has two channels, one for a microphone (low and high Z), the other for a
Piezo, the AS80R has three channels...here are the specifications:

Channel 1: Balanced XLR input with phase switch; Active volume and EQ.
Channel 2: Active volume and EQ; Shift switch.
Channel 3: Active volume and EQ; Piezo/Preamp switch; Anti-Feedback Filters;
Pick Attack Control; Pedal Level FX Loop.
Overall: Stereo Reverb; Stereo Analog Chorus; Effects Loop; Effects Mix;
Stereo Line Out; Phase reverse switch.
Dimensions (mm): 452 x 558 x 255
Output: 80 watts stereo (40 watts per side)
Footpedal: P804 (supplied with unit)

Other than the extra channel, more headroom and the included footswitch, the
AS50R is much the same.

Cheers, CS
--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.

 Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm

"singer" <<singer@catfishmusic...>> wrote in message
news:<fc7dbb0e.0304270458.17e6e060@posting...>...
> Any recommendations for a solid, dependable amp for acoustic guitar
> and one mic? I usually play fairly small rooms, so firepower isn't
> necessary. I've used a Fender Acoustisonic for a couple of years now,
> but I'm tired of toting it back and forth to the music store to have
> it's reverb tank replaced (and, anyway, the reverb on this was crappy
> to start with).
> I'd love to find something relatively light, and not terribly
> expensive. I've tried the Centaur Acoustic PA, and I love it, but they
> cost an arm and a leg. Anything similar out there, but hopefully a
> little cheaper?
> Thanks.


From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:52:09 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...

On 27 Apr 2003 05:58:02 -0700, <singer@catfishmusic...> (singer) brewed
up the following, and served it to the group:

>Any recommendations for a solid, dependable amp for acoustic guitar
>and one mic? I usually play fairly small rooms, so firepower isn't
>necessary. I've used a Fender Acoustisonic for a couple of years now,
>but I'm tired of toting it back and forth to the music store to have
>it's reverb tank replaced (and, anyway, the reverb on this was crappy
>to start with).
>I'd love to find something relatively light, and not terribly
>expensive. I've tried the Centaur Acoustic PA, and I love it, but they
>cost an arm and a leg. Anything similar out there, but hopefully a
>little cheaper?
>Thanks.

Singer--Which model of Acoustasonic are you using? I've had the
Junior (the 40-watt model) for 2 or 3 years now, and haven't had a
problem with it. (I'm wondering if I should be looking out for this
problem!)

Have you looked at Ultrasound amps? They've got some premium product.

-----
"Do we find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground

 Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."
            --Crosby, Stills, and Nash
       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: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:33:00 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

I've now done several gigs and one or two amplification-for-others using
the dirt cheap Marshall AS50R, and it does a fine job. Deb Cowan of this
NG was miked and guitarred through it for our folk club earlier in the
month. Dunno what she thought apart from not wanting my usual overkill
reverb and chorus, but it sounded very good indeed from the audience
point of view.

David


From: Mark Mestman <Guitarmakermark@Yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: 27 Apr 2003 12:50:13 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

<singer@catfishmusic...> (singer) wrote in message:
(snipped)

> Any recommendations for a solid, dependable amp for acoustic guitar
> and one mic? I usually play fairly small rooms, so firepower isn't
>

Singer,

I lucked out and found a tent sale at the local musician's supply
sale. They were selling off thier rental pool of audio stage
equipment, including several Peavey pa systems.

I picked up a 6-channel Peavey powered mixer head and two Peavey
loudspeaker cabinets,(150 watts/4ohms, 105 watts/8ohms,) plus two
AudioTecnics microphones, all this for $500.00. The mixer head has a
ton of features, including reverb and phantom power, tape and monitor
inputs/outputs, line-out and line-in, effects inputs/outputs, main eq,
individual channel eq, etc etc,

It's used equipment, but it all was warranteed, and well-maintained.

 I made this puchase a year ago,  and have not had any trouble with it
at all. My system fills all my amplification needs, and the
individual pieces are much lighter and easier to carry than a single
amplifier.

You might want to check around your area, to see what used equipment
is available. You can get much more for your dollar buying used,
than new.

Hope this helps!!

Mark


From: Charlie <charlie@texasbluesman...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:46:28 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - Texas

The all-in-one Peavey portable PA is the Pevaey Escort 2000 which we use
ourselves. 150W powered 5 channel stereo mixer.

The BEST PART is that it HAS WHEELS!! It can roll behind you like a
suitcase in the airport.

Everything stows in the case and there is extra storage in the case as well
to use. It fits in my Toyota Corolla (back seat or trunk) and weighs about
55lbs.
Sets up and takes down in about 5 mins. It is way cool for $599 retail. I
got ours at Strait Music in Austin,Texas for $525

--

- Charlie

- Charlie's BLUES Songs
- Hi-fi mp3 streaming media and downloads

   http://www.texasbluesman.net
   http://www.mp3.com/texasbluesman

"Brent Barkow" <<bbarkow.news.invalid@web2news...>> wrote in message
news:<27061N007@web2news...>...
> snip
> > I picked up a 6-channel Peavey powered mixer head and two Peavey
> > loudspeaker cabinets,(150 watts/4ohms, 105 watts/8ohms,) plus two
> > AudioTecnics microphones, all this for $500.00. The
> > mixer head has a
> > ton of features, including reverb and phantom power, tape
> > and monitor
> > inputs/outputs, line-out and line-in, effects
> > inputs/outputs, main eq,
> > individual channel eq, etc etc,
> snip
>
> Speaking of Peavey, they make a real nice all-in-one system called (I
> think) the Export. Has 2 speakers, speaker stands, cables and powered
> mixer that all snaps together into one unit that you can roll around
> like a piece of luggage. I used one a couple of times for "coffee-house"
> type gigs and it sounded very good. Probably around $550.00 street, and
> weighs under 50 pounds.
> Brent
> --
> Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
> http://web2news.com/?rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
> To contact in private, remove nn7o0s0paa+-m


From: hbol <hbol@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:49:25 +0100

boy am i happy to see this posting...i have just purchased the Marshall
AS100D. it is doing a superb job for my acoustic guitar (w/martin thin-line
pickup), mandolin (active electronics), banjo (mic'd up), and the vocal
channel sounds great too... ((a little unexpected bonus for me was that it
also does a fantastic job for my strat!)).... the effects offered with it
seem a bit overkill for acoustic sets but still, it's nice to have. i have
not gigged with it yet but in the living room it sounds, from experience,
like it will do the job with style and grace. i was pleased to see other
postings here approving of the 50w version of the marshall. i tried a 50w
version in the shops and was very pleased with it - but opted to buy the
100w version because it seemed to have a richer tonal quality. anyway
Singer, looks to me like Marshall are worth a look.
hbol..

"singer" <<singer@catfishmusic...>> wrote in message
news:<fc7dbb0e.0304270458.17e6e060@posting...>...
> Any recommendations for a solid, dependable amp for acoustic guitar
> and one mic? I usually play fairly small rooms, so firepower isn't
> necessary. I've used a Fender Acoustisonic for a couple of years now,
> but I'm tired of toting it back and forth to the music store to have
> it's reverb tank replaced (and, anyway, the reverb on this was crappy
> to start with).
> I'd love to find something relatively light, and not terribly
> expensive. I've tried the Centaur Acoustic PA, and I love it, but they
> cost an arm and a leg. Anything similar out there, but hopefully a
> little cheaper?
> Thanks.


From: Glenn <hersh@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: 27 Apr 2003 23:08:52 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

.>.i have just purchased the Marshall
>AS100D

Hi, I too have an AS50R and have been very happy with how versitile it is. I
was not aware that any other versions were currently being offered. I have
used it in a few different kinds of settings, and it has come thru for me each
time. With my new band however, I was thinking that I may need more power, and
was considering an Ultrasound 100W. What is the speaker configuration for the
100W Marshall? Thanks....and thanks to all for having such an informative
forum. I read the posts that you all submit daily, and have learned a lot from
your experiences. Take care


From: hbol <hbol@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 01:17:04 +0100

yo glenn,
the AS100D is a 50w + 50w, 2X8" combo with two high fidelity polymer dome
tweeters. it has 4 channels and 16 built-in stereo digital effects (some of
them not too bad)....its a bit larger in size and weight than the 50R and by
british prices it is twice the price. its just under 500.00 here (by ruff
calculation thats about $800.00)..i would bet that you will get it a lot
cheaper than that if you are in america or buying 2nd hand. as i said
earlier, i tried out the 50R in the shop and was very impressed with it but
it was, well, a wee bit weak for me. the 100D is, albeit twice the price,
twice the amp - imo - so far -...does it have the power to gig? sounds like
it to me.
hbol

"Glenn" <<hersh@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030427190852.21337.00000124@mb-m15...>...
> .>.i have just purchased the Marshall
> >AS100D
>
>
> Hi, I too have an AS50R and have been very happy with how versitile it is.
I
> was not aware that any other versions were currently being offered. I
have
> used it in a few different kinds of settings, and it has come thru for me
each
> time. With my new band however, I was thinking that I may need more
power, and
> was considering an Ultrasound 100W. What is the speaker configuration for
the
> 100W Marshall? Thanks....and thanks to all for having such an informative
> forum. I read the posts that you all submit daily, and have learned a lot
from
> your experiences. Take care
>
>


From: Misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:25:37 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

singer wrote:
> Any recommendations for a solid, dependable amp for acoustic guitar
> and one mic? I usually play fairly small rooms, so firepower isn't
> necessary. I've used a Fender Acoustisonic for a couple of years now,
> but I'm tired of toting it back and forth to the music store to have
> it's reverb tank replaced (and, anyway, the reverb on this was crappy
> to start with).
> I'd love to find something relatively light, and not terribly
> expensive. I've tried the Centaur Acoustic PA, and I love it, but they
> cost an arm and a leg. Anything similar out there, but hopefully a
> little cheaper?
> Thanks.

That sounds like a description of my Ultrasound AG-50DS2. Small,
light, very clean, with one mic channel and one guitar channel
with built in effects. Plenty of volume for a small room.

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


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: 29 Apr 2003 13:57:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<singer wrote:
> Any recommendations for a solid, dependable amp for acoustic guitar
> and one mic? I usually play fairly small rooms, so firepower isn't
> necessary. I've used a Fender Acoustisonic for a couple of years now,
> but I'm tired of toting it back and forth to the music store to have
> it's reverb tank replaced (and, anyway, the reverb on this was crappy
> to start with).>>

I use my Trace-Elliot TA100R that way. Works GREAT.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Kevin Phillips.....BONG! <bongingon@thejoint...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp/pa
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:23:48 +0930
Organization: iPrimus Customer - reports relating to abuse should be sent to abuse@iprimus.com.au

try kustom - i found its pretty good for the price.
http://www.kustom.com
"singer" <<singer@catfishmusic...>> wrote in message
news:<fc7dbb0e.0304270458.17e6e060@posting...>...
> Any recommendations for a solid, dependable amp for acoustic guitar
> and one mic? I usually play fairly small rooms, so firepower isn't
> necessary. I've used a Fender Acoustisonic for a couple of years now,
> but I'm tired of toting it back and forth to the music store to have
> it's reverb tank replaced (and, anyway, the reverb on this was crappy
> to start with).
> I'd love to find something relatively light, and not terribly
> expensive. I've tried the Centaur Acoustic PA, and I love it, but they
> cost an arm and a leg. Anything similar out there, but hopefully a
> little cheaper?
> Thanks.

pa systems
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: pa systems
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:40:14 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Baj2k" <<guitarplayer@NOSPAMev1...>> wrote in message
news:g02ra.530$<i26.84282795@newssvr15...>...
> I have a Fender Passport PD-250 I use with my Taylor 710ce. The PD-250 is
> around $800, and to me they sound as good or better than an acoustic amp,
> and they're more versatile. My friend has a PD-150 which also sounds great
> and has the added advantage of weighing < 30lbs.
>
> Take a look at them here...
>
> http://www.fenderaudio.com/gear/gear.php?partno=0692001003
>
> Hope this helps.

If this was my goal I would just us a ultrasound with a ext speaker
George

Roland Jazz Chorus [6]
From: Hey You <pickproblem@yahoo...>
Subject: Roland Jazz Chorus
Date: 4 May 2003 08:26:54 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Hi, does anyone have any opinions on running an acoustic through a
Roland Jazz Chorus amp? I know they are primarily electric guitar
amps but I have seen one of these and really liked the way an acoustic
sounded through it.
I have looked on Roland's website and they also do an AC-100 (Acoustic
Chorus) but it looks expensive and reviews are not all flattering.
After looking on ebay i have seen quite a few there for not a great
deal of money. After encountering money problems recently i'm tempted
to sell my AER Acousticube IIa and go for one of these retro looking
beasts.
Any feedback on these amps guys?
Thanks.


From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Roland Jazz Chorus
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 19:46:34 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

<pickproblem@yahoo...> (Hey You) wrote in
news:<22f11248.0305040726.71a8ace6@posting...>:

> Hi, does anyone have any opinions on running an acoustic through a
> Roland Jazz Chorus amp? I know they are primarily electric guitar
> amps but I have seen one of these and really liked the way an acoustic
> sounded through it.

See my other post about this, on your B-Band hiss problem.

The bottom line is -- if you like the sound, then go for it!

It wouldn't be my personal choice, because I like the sense of "air" or
"openness" you hear in the higher frequencies of a full-range speaker
system, even when I'm rolling off some of those high frequencies with EQ to
reduce hiss. Electric guitar amps just sound a little muddy and dull by
comparison. But again, it's your ears we're talking about here, not mine.
Our choice of music, playing styles, and guitars we're amplifying might be
vastly different. If that's the sound you like, then go for it.

Note: check the weight if you'll be gigging out. A JC120 is something like
60lbs, which is about 10lbs more than I like to drag out of a car trunk.
Some of the better acoustic amps (and electric amps) are lighter than this.
Just wanted to mention that, in case you haven't tried picking one up. :-)

> I have looked on Roland's website and they also do an AC-100 (Acoustic
> Chorus) but it looks expensive and reviews are not all flattering.
> After looking on ebay i have seen quite a few there for not a great
> deal of money. After encountering money problems recently i'm tempted
> to sell my AER Acousticube IIa and go for one of these retro looking
> beasts.

Yeah, that's one big advantage with a JC120 -- there are plenty available
on the used market, at great prices. They seem to hold up pretty well over
time too, unless they've been abused.

--
Mike Barrs


From: Abdul Tom <abdul@thelarkincompany...>
Subject: Re: Roland Jazz Chorus
Date: 5 May 2003 08:47:46 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

I love JCs, but they are big mothers as the other posters said. I
think you can get a good neutral sound on them. At the end of the day
trannies are trannies.


From: WESTDM <westdm@aol...>
Subject: Re: Roland Jazz Chorus
Date: 05 May 2003 15:07:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I have a JC77 that I use for a regular church amp every week. They are pretty
much bullet proof and always sound the same. I use this for electric though.

It sounds OK for acoustic, but really isn't the most natural acoustic sound.
You will still see the group America using these, and have been for years now.

I have a couple of acoustics with active I-beam p/u's and they are pretty much
uncontrolable at any usable volume, running through the amp.

--David


From: Brent Barkow <bbarkow.news.invalid@web2news...>
Subject: Re: Roland Jazz Chorus
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 17:17:24 +0200
Organization: Web2news.com

snip
> I have a couple of acoustics with active I-beam p/u's and
> they are pretty much
> uncontrolable at any usable volume, running through the amp.
>
> --David

I found that using a soundhole cover with the I-beam active makes a
world of difference.
Brent
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
To contact in private, remove nn-oos4pa5mm


From: Cor&Helma <vaessen1@worldonline...>
Subject: Re: Roland Jazz Chorus
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 20:31:26 +0200
Organization: Tiscali Benelux

Hi,
I heard David Linley playing his guitar with a Jazz-chorus 120 and it
sounding great.
But he using Sunrise-pickups so I don't know how it sounds with a piezo.
I think it's a good choice.
Regards, Cor

Hey You <<pickproblem@yahoo...>> schreef in berichtnieuws
<22f11248.0305040726.71a8ace6@posting...>...
> Hi, does anyone have any opinions on running an acoustic through a
> Roland Jazz Chorus amp? I know they are primarily electric guitar
> amps but I have seen one of these and really liked the way an acoustic
> sounded through it.
> I have looked on Roland's website and they also do an AC-100 (Acoustic
> Chorus) but it looks expensive and reviews are not all flattering.
> After looking on ebay i have seen quite a few there for not a great
> deal of money. After encountering money problems recently i'm tempted
> to sell my AER Acousticube IIa and go for one of these retro looking
> beasts.
> Any feedback on these amps guys?
> Thanks.

acoustic amps? [3]
From: JJNeet1 <jjneet1@aol...>
Subject: acoustic amps?
Date: 05 May 2003 05:07:19 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

    How about some suggestions for a versatile acoustic amp?Maybe one that
could be capable of playing a small club.I finally got a new pickup on my
ancient National acoustic guitar that I bought new back about 1969-1970 or so.I
tried out a Crate CA30D at Guitar Center yesterday,and thought it sounded
pretty good playing an Ibanez PF5 something or other.Also I've read somewhere
that a good keyboard amp works good with an acoustic guitar-is this true?I see
that some acoustic guitar amps have an 8,or 10" speaker,while others use
several much smaller ones-sometimes even several 5" speakers.Can you get good
low note definition with 5" speakers?Also,how about power ratings with these
amps?Would a 30 watt amp,such as the Crate mentioned above,work in a small club
setting?

    Thanks, Jon Neet

From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps?
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 10:57:36 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

JJNeet1 wrote:
> How about some suggestions for a versatile acoustic amp?Maybe one that
> could be capable of playing a small club.I finally got a new pickup on my
> ancient National acoustic guitar that I bought new back about 1969-1970 or so.I
> tried out a Crate CA30D at Guitar Center yesterday,and thought it sounded
> pretty good playing an Ibanez PF5 something or other.Also I've read somewhere
> that a good keyboard amp works good with an acoustic guitar-is this true?I see
> that some acoustic guitar amps have an 8,or 10" speaker,while others use
> several much smaller ones-sometimes even several 5" speakers.Can you get good
> low note definition with 5" speakers?Also,how about power ratings with these
> amps?Would a 30 watt amp,such as the Crate mentioned above,work in a small club
> setting?
>
Not especially well. We've tried with 30 watts/ 25 watts and similar,
and generally it's not quite enough
unless the speakers are wonderful - or 4 ohms in the case of mini PAs.

A 50 watt mono for a single player, or a 50+50 stereo PA would be the
absolute minimum. I normally use either a 50 watt mono (Marshall) or a
100 + 100 PA (Roland) and the practical effect of the two is pretty
similar - one for solo with mike, the other for say two instruments and
two voices typically.

David


From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps?
Date: 05 May 2003 12:42:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Here's what I use:

Very Small Venue - Ultrasound 50 watt

Small/Med Venue - U/S 50 watt plus 50 watt powered extension cab

Large venue on stage - Ultrasound 50 watt as monitor

See the Ultrasounds here -

http://www.samusic.com/amplification/ultrasound.shtml

This after having owned a Crate 30 watt and a SWR California Blonde 100-watter.

Enjoy the journey,

Mitch

R: acoustic amps?
From: Giacomo Fiore <jflowerREMOVE@tin...>
Subject: R: acoustic amps?
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 17:26:09 +0200
Organization: Tiscali Spa

JJNeet1 <<jjneet1@aol...>> wrote in message
<20030505010719.28141.00000787@mb-m14...>...
> How about some suggestions for a versatile acoustic amp?

I'll second the suggestion about UltraSound amps and add my personal
favourites, German-Made AER. the compact 60 is lightweight, portable and
pristine sounding. great bass response.

J

Ultrasound 30W practice amp
From: rtmca <rtmca.news.invalid@web2news...>
Subject: Ultrasound 30W practice amp
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 22:18:16 +0200
Organization: Web2news.com

I saw on the Shoreline a little light weight Ultrasound pracice amp for
$135. Has anyone any experience with these for casual use? How about as
a monitor?
Robert
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
To contact in private, remove nnoo+sp-5a5mm

R: Ultrasound 30W practice amp
From: Giacomo Fiore <jflowerREMOVE@tin...>
Subject: R: Ultrasound 30W practice amp
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 23:59:59 +0200
Organization: Tiscali Spa

Most people swear by them. I have tried one once in a unfavorable setting,
yet it did not fail to impress me for its clarity and transparency.
Try and see if you find one to try out first.

AER AG8 amp / monitor
From: Mike Cloud <clouds@nospamkiva...>
Subject: AER AG8 amp / monitor
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 17:00:33 -0400
Organization: Kiva Networking

Does anyone have experience with the AER AG8 acoustic amp? It looks like it
would be a really nice powered monitor for use with a small PA, and it
apparently doubles as a compact two channel acoustic amp. Does anyone have
any experience with, or opinions about this model? I'm going to try one out
this week-end. Thanks!

Mike Cloud

R: AER AG8 amp / monitor
From: Giacomo Fiore <jflowerREMOVE@tin...>
Subject: R: AER AG8 amp / monitor
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 03:04:27 +0200
Organization: Tiscali Spa

Mike Cloud <<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote in message
b9h89s$27t$<1@pipo...>...
> Does anyone have experience with the AER AG8 acoustic amp?

No experience with this model, but I really appreciated the AER Compact 60
I'm now selling (moving to the US from Italy, severe voltage issues... :-/).
The brand itself is truly spectacular. I think you'll be in for a treat.

J

AER AG8 amp / monitor
From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: AER AG8 amp / monitor
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 06:57:06 -0400

A friend of mine mates the AG8 as a monitor with her AER compact 60 for
small gigs. Works great.

Steve

"Mike Cloud" <<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote in message
news:b9h89s$27t$<1@pipo...>...
> Does anyone have experience with the AER AG8 acoustic amp? It looks like
it
> would be a really nice powered monitor for use with a small PA, and it
> apparently doubles as a compact two channel acoustic amp. Does anyone
have
> any experience with, or opinions about this model? I'm going to try one
out
> this week-end. Thanks!
>
> Mike Cloud
>
>

Any updated Behringer reviews - ACX1000? [2]
From: Brett Foster <brett_foster@yahoo...>
Subject: Any updated Behringer reviews - ACX1000?
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:28:29 +1000

Folks,
I am interested if anyone has any experience yet with the ULTRACOUSTIC
ACX1000 amp from Behringer? I am looking at it for an amp to leave at
church for use there by various acoustic players, although knowing my
luck some young Les Paul grunge fanatic will come along and try to
overdrive it.
I googled the group but the views to date were without much time spent
in the company of this amp, which I gather is fairly newly released..
It seems reasonably priced and exorbitantly over-featured.
What about the actual tone and ease of use on first encounter?

My gigging amp is an AER Compact 60 if that helps for a point of
reference.

Thanks,

Brett Foster


From: JS <jefsu@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Any updated Behringer reviews - ACX1000?
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:40:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband

On Mon, 26 May 2003 16:21:44 +1000, "stuart"
<<stuartgordon_nospam@optushome...>> wrote:

>http://www.harmony-central.com/Guitar/Data/Behringer/ACX_Ultracoustic_Combo-
>01.html

Looks like Behringer had a QC problem...

Jeff S.

just starting one man scene [5]
From: easy cowlren <cowlren@hotmail...>
Subject: just starting one man scene
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:26:02 +0100
Organization: Motorola

I was thinking of investing in a elecrtrical acoustic and hooking up to the
new marshall as50r combo. Quotes from sites for about $580 for the amp and
$610 for an Esteve 1GR3EC. Is a 50 Watt enough for a small crowd. Also do
the prices sound right.

I'd appreciate the feedback. I've built up a big enough set with a poor
guitar and need to make the next step


From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: just starting one man scene
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:20:42 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico

Someone in this NG (or it might be another) is selling an AS50R for
$250US...$580 is high...even in Canadian Dollars these are only ~$450. You
should be able to pick it up for $300 USD. Check E-bay. It is indeed perfect
for small crowds (~50 people). Put it on a chair or an amplifier stand to
get it off the ground and point it slightly upwards. Marshall also has an
80Watt version, but you'll not notice any significant increase in output
between the two...just an extra channel. If you decide to play bigger gigs,
you can patch the AS50R directly to a PA and use the unit as a
monitor...brilliant! You'll need a microphone as well, so plan on $150 for
that (SM58 or something of the sort should do you). A stand for your
microphone and your guitars is also "de rigeur"...Patch chords for both the
mic and guitar are a must. You can probably get a Tak for much less than the
Esteve, but that's your preference. You should have no problem doing the
whole thing for under $1K, but that will be driven by your axe
preference...The Taylor 410CE is quite nice, but it'll drive your bottom
line way above 1K. I wouldn't dream of gigging with less than two
instruments beside me...Best of Luck,

-CS

--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.

 Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm

"easy cowlren" <<cowlren@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:bbkoj7$mfd$<1@newshost...>...
> I was thinking of investing in a elecrtrical acoustic and hooking up to
the
> new marshall as50r combo. Quotes from sites for about $580 for the amp
and
> $610 for an Esteve 1GR3EC. Is a 50 Watt enough for a small crowd. Also do
> the prices sound right.
>
> I'd appreciate the feedback. I've built up a big enough set with a poor
> guitar and need to make the next step
>
>


From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: just starting one man scene
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 13:48:01 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com

In article <bbkoj7$mfd$<1@newshost...>>, easy cowlren
<<cowlren@hotmail...>> wrote:

> I was thinking of investing in a elecrtrical acoustic and hooking up to the
> new marshall as50r combo. Quotes from sites for about $580 for the amp and
> $610 for an Esteve 1GR3EC. Is a 50 Watt enough for a small crowd. Also do
> the prices sound right.

I've got a Marshall AS80R I'll sell for $350 plus shipping, with a
Marshall cover. It's a nice amp -- inputs for mic, acoustic, and
electric, built-in chorus and reverb, good EQ capabilities. Just fine
for a one-man show. I've never used it much; I end up using a house
system or someone's PA.

Email me if you're interested.

                                        --Al Evans--

From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: just starting one man scene
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:28:13 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

easy cowlren wrote:
> I was thinking of investing in a elecrtrical acoustic and hooking up to the
> new marshall as50r combo. Quotes from sites for about $580 for the amp and
> $610 for an Esteve 1GR3EC. Is a 50 Watt enough for a small crowd. Also do
> the prices sound right.
>
> I'd appreciate the feedback. I've built up a big enough set with a poor
> guitar and need to make the next step
>

It's fine - I use an angled monitor stand with mine, lifts it nine
inches off the ground and angles it up. This greatly changes the colour
of the sound, reduces bassiness and increases clarity. The mic input is
well matched to inexpensive mics - I use a Peavey PV-1, $39 stuff
basically, and it is just fine with this amp - I have much better mics
but they really don't show a big improvement.

The price sounds a lot, they are only $360 (under 200 plus tax) in the
UK at normal retail!

David


From: Dave Hallsworth <david.hallsworth@wadham...>
Subject: Re: just starting one man scene
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:10:44 +0100
Organization: Oxford University, England

> Quotes from sites for about $580 for the amp

Others have said it, but shit, that's expensive. I got mine (including
channel switcher pedal) for 205.

Dave

AER "Line" input impedance [3]
From: Mike Cloud <clouds@nospamkiva...>
Subject: AER "Line" input impedance
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:32:06 -0400
Organization: Kiva Networking

Does anyone know the input impedance for "Line" inputs on AER amps? I'm not
talking about the 10 meg inputs found on many of their amps, and also not
the balanced combination XLR / TRS inputs found on many as well. Rather,
I'm wondering about the 1/4" "Line" input on the AG8 (and probably on some
of their other models). I've e-mailed AER several times asking this
question, but have received no response. Can anyone help me out? Thanks!

Mike Cloud


From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: AER "Line" input impedance
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:44:48 -0400

Used to be that you could download the operating instructions for AER
products from their web site. My Compact 60 manual lists the impedance for
the inputs. Now all you can get from the AER website is a summary sheet for
all their products that doesn't list that kind of detail. Bummer.

I have a friend who owns an AG-8. She's not technically inclined, but maybe
she has the manual. I'll e-mail and ask her if she has it and if the input
specs are listed.

All the best,

Steve Comeau
(remove anti-spam word "not" to reply directly)

"Mike Cloud" <<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote in message
news:bbp53o$7ai$<1@pipo...>...
> Does anyone know the input impedance for "Line" inputs on AER amps? I'm
not
> talking about the 10 meg inputs found on many of their amps, and also not
> the balanced combination XLR / TRS inputs found on many as well. Rather,
> I'm wondering about the 1/4" "Line" input on the AG8 (and probably on some
> of their other models). I've e-mailed AER several times asking this
> question, but have received no response. Can anyone help me out? Thanks!
>
> Mike Cloud
>
>


From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: AER "Line" input impedance
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:32:32 -0400

Hi Mike,

My friend who owns an AG-8 replied with the following:

line: 10dBV,10K
aux stereo: 16dBV,20K
Mic,balanced 36dBV,600 ohms

balance jack input:
tip positive
ting negative
sleeve ground

Hope this helps.

All the best,

Steve

"Mike Cloud" <<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote in message
news:bbp53o$7ai$<1@pipo...>...
> Does anyone know the input impedance for "Line" inputs on AER amps? I'm
not
> talking about the 10 meg inputs found on many of their amps, and also not
> the balanced combination XLR / TRS inputs found on many as well. Rather,
> I'm wondering about the 1/4" "Line" input on the AG8 (and probably on some
> of their other models). I've e-mailed AER several times asking this
> question, but have received no response. Can anyone help me out? Thanks!
>
> Mike Cloud
>
>

Are all amps like this? [10]
From: Peter A. Collin <pcollin@rochester...>
Subject: Are all amps like this?
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:14:23 GMT
Organization: Road Runner

I have a peavey acoustasonic 112. It sounds great but it has a strange
thing about it - I can not put the volume past 2 without blowing out the
speaker. It seems like there is way too much gain on the input, so you can
only play with a very small range on the volume knob. A buddy of mine has
an acoustic amp - some other make - and it does exactly the same thing.
There is even a little switch that says high/low gain, but that doesn't keep
it from getting way too loud past 2. Are they all like this?

Peter Collin


From: rtmca <rtmca.news.invalid@web2news...>
Subject: Re: Are all amps like this?
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:17:08 +0200
Organization: Web2news.com

Are you sure it's not low frequency bass feedback that is blowing
speakers?
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic


From: Peter A. Collin <pcollin@rochester...>
Subject: Re: Are all amps like this?
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 23:40:25 GMT
Organization: Road Runner

"rtmca" <<rtmca.news.invalid@web2news...>> wrote in message
news:<37750N628@web2news...>...
> Are you sure it's not low frequency bass feedback that is blowing
> speakers?
> --
> Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
> http://web2news.com/?rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic

It isn't feedback. That sucker is LOUD at a volume setting of 2. Clear as
a bell and sounds nice, but LOUD. Any higher would cause distortion, and
have the cops arrive at my door. It is a 100 watt amp.


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Are all amps like this?
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 15:04:42 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Peter A. Collin wrote:
> "rtmca" <<rtmca.news.invalid@web2news...>> wrote in message
> news:<37750N628@web2news...>...
>
>>Are you sure it's not low frequency bass feedback that is blowing
>>speakers?
>>--
>>Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
>>http://web2news.com/?rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
>
>
> It isn't feedback. That sucker is LOUD at a volume setting of 2. Clear as
> a bell and sounds nice, but LOUD. Any higher would cause distortion, and
> have the cops arrive at my door. It is a 100 watt amp.
>

Usually, this is the result of an amp designed for magnetic pickups,
used with a high output active piezo. My Fender Princetown Chorus was
much the same and my Fender AmpCan can barely be used over vol setting 2.

Try plugging in a passive piezo, or a mag pickup with no preamp
(traditional Strat etc) and you will find it makes sense.

Doesn't explain why they call it 'E-coustic' though; nothing Peavey
which I have ever owned has really been properly made for acoustic
market. They are dominated by band/rock parameters.

David


From: Peter A. Collin <pcollin@rochester...>
Subject: Re: Are all amps like this?
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 16:16:12 GMT
Organization: Road Runner

>
> Doesn't explain why they call it 'E-coustic' though; nothing Peavey
> which I have ever owned has really been properly made for acoustic
> market. They are dominated by band/rock parameters.
>
> David
>
Funny you mention that. I was never too impressed with any Peavey equipment
before, but I like my amp very much - it does what I need it to do. I
picked it from the store after trying Crates and Fenders. Even sounds good
with a microphone through it for vocals. It is more than loud enough for
the rooms I play, and clear as a bell.

Peter Collin


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Are all amps like this?
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:13:39 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Peter A. Collin wrote:
>>Doesn't explain why they call it 'E-coustic' though; nothing Peavey
>>which I have ever owned has really been properly made for acoustic
>>market. They are dominated by band/rock parameters.
>>
>>David
>>
>
> Funny you mention that. I was never too impressed with any Peavey equipment
> before, but I like my amp very much - it does what I need it to do. I
> picked it from the store after trying Crates and Fenders. Even sounds good
> with a microphone through it for vocals. It is more than loud enough for
> the rooms I play, and clear as a bell.
>
I would agree that in comparison with Crate and most Fender, it's
probably better designed -
except maybe the big Acoustasonic.

I am not convinced there are all that many decent acoustic amps around
anyway. AER, Ultrasound, Ashworth - the bigger old Trace Elliotts but
even then I think they were doubtful. I use a Marshall AS50R not because
it is any good really, but because it's cheap and lightweight! I found
the Peavey too big and heavy. I like to be able to walk the 800 yards or
so to my local town centre carrying all my gear if I want, and most amps

  leave you with very long arms over that sort of distance.
David


From: Mike brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: Are all amps like this?
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:05:30 +1000
Organization: none

> except maybe the big Acoustasonic.

> David

I've got an Acoustasonic Junior, and I'm very happy with it. I use it at 3
to 5 most of the time, playing in small places, but I'm sure that it would
be fine further up the scale in larger rooms.
Michael James Richard B


From: Peter A. Collin <pcollin@rochester...>
Subject: Re: Are all amps like this?
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:35:07 GMT
Organization: Road Runner

"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3ee48b30.2078351@news...>...
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:14:23 GMT, "Peter A. Collin"
> <<pcollin@rochester...>> wrote:
>
> >I have a peavey acoustasonic 112. It sounds great but it has a strange
> >thing about it - I can not put the volume past 2 without blowing out the
> >speaker. It seems like there is way too much gain on the input, so you
can
> >only play with a very small range on the volume knob. A buddy of mine
has
> >an acoustic amp - some other make - and it does exactly the same thing.
> >There is even a little switch that says high/low gain, but that doesn't
keep
> >it from getting way too loud past 2. Are they all like this?
> >
> >Peter Collin
>
> Hey Peter:
>
> What exactly is feeding the input? Guiotar plugged directly in or no?
> If its a mixer or device of some kind it might be better plugged into
> a line input (if available) or the send return jack.
> Sherm
>
>
Guitar straight in. Both have fishman battery powered pickups.

Pete


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Are all amps like this?
Date: 09 Jun 2003 18:58:00 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<I have a peavey acoustasonic 112. It sounds great but it has a strange
thing about it - I can not put the volume past 2 without blowing out the
speaker. It seems like there is way too much gain on the input, so you can
only play with a very small range on the volume knob. A buddy of mine has
an acoustic amp - some other make - and it does exactly the same thing.
There is even a little switch that says high/low gain, but that doesn't keep
it from getting way too loud past 2. Are they all like this?>>

No.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Are all amps like this?
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:41:14 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Peter A. Collin wrote:

>I have a peavey acoustasonic 112. It sounds great but it has a strange
>thing about it - I can not put the volume past 2 without blowing out the
>speaker. It seems like there is way too much gain on the input, so you can
>only play with a very small range on the volume knob. A buddy of mine has
>an acoustic amp - some other make - and it does exactly the same thing.
>There is even a little switch that says high/low gain, but that doesn't keep
>it from getting way too loud past 2. Are they all like this?
>
>Peter Collin
>
>
>
>

In a word, no.

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

A belated answer (from Opinions ... Hi-end speakz)
From: RAY BOYCE <raymond.spamoutboyce3@verizon...>
Subject: Re: A belated answer (from Opinions ... Hi-end speakz)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:14:01 GMT

I've heard Daedalus, just not enough to have confidence to comment on, and
not sure which model... so in effect "haven't" is close enough. What I do
recall about them is how nice they look, and that they sounded good but
could've been louder... (these are just "bystander" observations) I actually
checked the gain/volume level at the powered mixer and believed they
shouldve been louder, but I wasn't involved enough in gig/setup to know for
sure what levels upstream signals were at...

I believe you'll get a great speaker that meets your criteria out of any of
these lines, with value. I also believe that an industrial model will give
you more value (soundwise), but at this price range they all should sound
stellar. I believe part of the $ on the daedalus are spent in the elegance
of the cabs... that's important to some, especially in the acoustic guitar
world...

As far as clean sound, it would be a hard sell to tell me that any
professional series EAW has distortion (or more accurately, produced
distortion) at any listening range... and my ears (tired as they are) DO NOT
like distortion of anything. Thats the point of my posts.... not pushing a
speaker hard (or the amp behind it), and of course all this has to assume
correct gain structure upstream, which likely will be the cause of most
distortion anyway. Staying well within the components' limits will always
yeild better sound.

Our ears up close can hear reflected sound.... so our ears can hear a horn
at high spl. I'm ok with that... but that's not the same as saying I like a
sound harsh/distorted... and EAW will not sound anything like harsh and
distorted.

One side note, like many on the NG, I am a huge fan of ultrasound acoustic
guitar amps.... their sonic purity is a bench mark, and they use all cone
components. Last time I used mine in my house, it was late nite as a
reference, we were A-B testing the AG50R against an integrated (box) mixer
amp out through my JBL SR4721 cabs, the older 600 watt 1x12 with "big-butt"
bi radial horn, using the ultrasound to compare for noisiness of recently
repaired box-amp .

My friend hurt my feelings a little when he said he liked the sound of the
JBL's better than the ultrasound, (even at low volumes), but I had to agree.
I say this not to diminish Ultrasound.... they are a great amp, second to
none, I own more pricey hi-end acoustic amps (such as Rivera) to compare
them to. I say this to point out that tendencies (such as horn reflective
tone/lobing) are not laws or absolute.... even when compared to all-cone
purity.

Anyway I'm done and I do agree with George, let your ears decide is the
right advice. You'd probably be able to rent a set of JF80s pretty easily
and carry them to a Daedalus or SLS retailer, with arrangements with dealer
up front. There are plenty of the EAWs around as rental stock.

Really do mean it all in the best way, with utmost respect for everyone.

~ray

"D. Lemon" <<dsslemon@attbi...>> wrote in message
news:qcKFa.156361$<M01.73898@sccrnsc...>...
> Ray,
> Thanks very much for that reply - it makes sense to me....
> I went back and re-read your previous posts and I don't think you've heard
> the SLS or Daedalus speakers. Which means only George (of those who have
> posted to this thread) has heard more than one of these three speakers:
> SLS 8190
> EAW JF80
> Daedalus W-803
>
> You (Ray) said, EAW JF80 "does small exceptional, but will do medium big
> well"
> I think that's the distinction to be made, that and the tweeters are
> waveguide horns and twin mid-range speakers ease the tweeter demands. The
> street price I found this morning for the JF80s was $800. They do not come
> in a model that has a stand socket, so you'd have to bolt on an Ultimate
> Stand Adaptor.
>
>
> George offered this bit of advice that is hard to refute:
> "you may want to wait until september and go to AES in NYC where you can
> audition all these boxes in one place or contact the makers and have them
> set up demos for you - you may prefer the more powerful sound of the eaw
> over the more open sound of the SLS"
>
> And then he added some spice:
> "The sound of the sls is not everyone's automatic choice - we have been
> accoustomed to harsh distorted sound for so long , when you hear clean
rich
> sound without the distortion one often feels there is something missing
> (there is, the distortion) this hf distortion has become such a part of
our
> idea of what sound should sound like we miss it when it is gone"
>
> Thanks. Dan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "RAY BOYCE" <<raymond.spamoutboyce3@verizon...>> wrote in message
> news:bBtFa.700$<Zx4.344@nwrddc01...>...
> > Some busy times left me "checking out" of a long thread days ago. I
just
> > went back and reread a coupla posts "in the middle", and discovered I
left
> > something a little bit unanswered. I thought it might be good to give
> one
> > more reply, as I somehow didn't get out a post clearly answering Dan's
> final
> > question.
> >
> > I appreciated the respectful replies (as he always displays) from Tom,
> > summarizing the speaker thread. Others also gave good contributions to
> the
> > thread.
> >
> > This is for those of you who like me, tend towards preference (when
> > up-close) for the smoother response of cones rather than compression
> > horns/drivers.
> >
> > http://www.eaw.com/products/item_new.phtml?part_number=0999519
> >
> > The FP 80 is specifically designed for NEARFIELD applications. Intended
> for
> > Band PA, Small HOWs, Theaters, Small Retail Spaces, etc. The value of
> the
> > FP 80 is "does small exceptional, but will do medium big well". For
> these
> > speakers in particular... they do have a horn-load tweeter, but keep in
> mind
> > the "mid" of these things are (2) 6.5 inche cones, so the horn only
really
> > has to to "kick in" at the higher frequencies/volumes. Finally, it's a
> > waveguide and not a bi-rad horn... All this adds up to mean: the
> ringy-ness
> > usually associated to horns is just not prevalent in these.
> >
> > They are extremely smooth up close, and I know of a small pro
> audio/lighting
> > showroom who uses them all day long with people listening at 5 feet...
> > comments typically are "wow... best I've ever heard".... then when they
> ask
> > how loud will they go and are shown... you should see their eyes light
up
> in
> > shear disbelief.
> >
> > The value is there for smooth/clean ... and their sound will draw tons
of
> > compliments in a living room. The cabinets are designed for
portability,
> > but they do look clean... although not in the same class as a Daedalus
for
> > elegance. The difference would be: if you needed to play at say, a
> > backyard wedding for 100 people... 2 of these boxes will be the "talk"
> > afterwards, plain truth.
> >
> > Finally, it should be stated that I am not a retailer, and I do not work
> for
> > EAW or anyone who sells EAW (but I have friends)... as a matter of fact,
> all
> > my gear is upper end JBL. I just sold off a bunch of Ramsa 200
> > (outdoor/utility) boxes. Many in the audion biz around here joke about
> how
> > "bent" I am on JBL, but I'm just serious about affordability and bang/$,
> > thats why I use them. Dan asked about hi-end, with purity. I would
> > encourage any in the market for this to check this out.
> >
> > So in closing, I still hold to my recommendation: Check out the FP 80,
> even
> > for small/quiet rooms. And my other recommendation is even more
> important,
> > let your ears decide. (i.e. what's a better tonewood, maple or
> > mahogany?)... only the listener knows for sure
> >
> > Best wishes Dan, and let the group know what you find and choose.
> >
> > "D. Lemon" <<dsslemon@attbi...>> wrote in message
> > news:RHqDa.1126869$<S_4.1158546@rwcrnsc...>...
> > > I believe that was Ray Boyce's point.
> > > He based his post on his experience with probably slightly larger
venues
> > > than I have in mind. Which is why I'd still be interested in his
> > > recommendation for "quiet venues".
> > > It's clear there is a line of demarkation between compression horns
and
> > (?)
> > > ribbon technology.
> > > My take is that the EAWs are at the edge of that line.
> > >
> > > By the way, are those dispersion patterns user-variable or ordered
that
> > way
> > > from SLS?
> > >
> > > Also, with the Icon, if you run your mains in stereo are you limited
to
> > two
> > > speakers regardless of whether they are 4 or 8 ohms? This strikes me
as
> a
> > > regressively dumb question but suddenly I'm a confused. It's
> theoretical -
> > I
> > > don't know how necessary or desirable it would be to run in stereo
> anyway,
> > > at least for me.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Don't know which George you were after (VBG), but here's my shot:
> > > >
> > > > I've heard a fair amount of EAW gear, but probably not these
> particular
> > > > speakers. What I remember was this: for a horn-loaded compression
> > > tweeter,
> > > > they were very, very nice sounding. If you have to "throw" your
sound
> a
> >
> > > > long distance, that might be a good option. Alternatively, the SLS
> line
> > > has
> > > > varying disperssion patterns for their tweeters, too, letting you
> throw
> > a
> > > > varying amount.
> > > >
> > > > Up close, I've yet to hear a compression tweeter sound very smooth.
> > They
> > > > seem to require some distance between them and the listener in
order
> > to
> > > > sound good. If you're playing a coffeehouse with a maximum throw of
> > 50',
> > > > you might be better with a speaker sans horn.
> > > >
> > > > George Reiswig
> > > > Song of the River Music
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

acoustic amps vs. pa systems [4]
From: mach1 <g11355@hotmail...>
Subject: acoustic amps vs. pa systems
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:10:45 -0500

Last month I purchased a California Blonde amp and am still very pleased
with it, but wonder if maybe a P.A. package might have been a wiser choice.
I've been looking at the yamaha 6 channel 300 watt system which is loaded
with features, E.Q., digital effects, and 2 12" speakers for roughly around
the same list price as the blonde amp. Anybody have any opinions on this
type of set up?


From: JoelT <joeltepp@ix...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps vs. pa systems
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:40:58 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

I own both a PA and an acoustic amp. I've also listened to several
other people who were using one or the other. The brands don't really
matter for this discussion. My main observation is that it is largely
a matter of convenience.

I have yet to find a compact portable amplifier that will ourperform a
good quality PA system On the other hand, the PA system I use has
powered speakers with 15" woofers that sit on stands and all sorts of
mixing capabilites that go way beyond the abilities of the acoustic
amp. In exchange for all this abundance, I have to make 3 trips from
the car for the PA alone.

My acoustic amp works well enough (and sounds better than many cheap
PAs) for smaller crowds and rooms. It is also very handy in
situations where my audience guitar sound comes from the line out and
goes into someone else's larger PA. I use the speakers in the
acoustic amp for my personal monitor, that's all.

Don' worry aobut the Yamaha PA you described. I believe that when you
are ready for a PA investment, you'll want 15" speakers, not 12s and
you'll be glad to have more than 6 inputs in case you are using it for
a situation where a full band is involved. If none of that applies to
you and you are not hosting solo shows using your PA and trying to
cover a crowd of 100+, you probably won't miss the features that PA
can supply. You certainly won't miss lugging it around to get
slightly improved sound over your acoustic amp.

Now for the actual brands of my gear, just for context. I ended up
selling my Trace Elliott acoustic amp and switching to an older G&K.
It's one of those teeny things with two 5" speakers. By itself, the
speakers don't sound quite as good as other acoustic amps. However,
none of the acoustic amps by themselves sounded as good as adding a
small monitor (1x12" and a small horn) to the powered output of the
GK. I use the GK speakers for my monitor and point the monitor
towards the crowd.

My PA system uses a Mackie board (1604VLZ) with an Alesis Wedge for
reverb. The main speakers are JBL EON15 G2s. I use various monitors
depending on the situation.

One other investment that has pleased me very much is to carry my own
higher end vocal mike and use it even when there is a house PA. For
now I have an EV ND857 and there is a Sennheiser that I'd love to see
show up in a pawn shop one day. If you are still using the standard
sort of Shure SM58 or 57, give it a try and see what you think. I
noticed a meaningful difference and I really like having exactly the
same vocal mike at every performance to help make the sound more
consistent and less distracting while I play.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:10:45 -0500, "mach1" <<g11355@hotmail...>>
wrote:

>Last month I purchased a California Blonde amp and am still very pleased
>with it, but wonder if maybe a P.A. package might have been a wiser choice.
>I've been looking at the yamaha 6 channel 300 watt system which is loaded
>with features, E.Q., digital effects, and 2 12" speakers for roughly around
>the same list price as the blonde amp. Anybody have any opinions on this
>type of set up?
>


From: mach1 <g11355@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps vs. pa systems
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:21:33 -0500

"JoelT" <<joeltepp@ix...>> wrote in message
news:<3eec8248.1379711@news...>...
> I own both a PA and an acoustic amp. I've also listened to several
> other people who were using one or the other. The brands don't really
> matter for this discussion. My main observation is that it is largely
> a matter of convenience.
>
Thanks for your advice Joel, but I went out today to guitar center and they
gave me a full refund for the calilfornia blonde. I wound up getting the
yamaha emx 68 stereo powered mixer and the 2 12" speakers, I'm totally
impressed with the difference between this pa and the amp, so many more
settings available and with the fishman electronics on my Taylor, there's no
limit on sound quality. The convenience part I can give in to that for the
sound that I get now. This unit is basically light weight compared to the
old vintage ampeg pa system that I've owned for about 28 years.

> I have yet to find a compact portable amplifier that will ourperform a
> good quality PA system On the other hand, the PA system I use has
> powered speakers with 15" woofers that sit on stands and all sorts of
> mixing capabilites that go way beyond the abilities of the acoustic
> amp. In exchange for all this abundance, I have to make 3 trips from
> the car for the PA alone.
>
> My acoustic amp works well enough (and sounds better than many cheap
> PAs) for smaller crowds and rooms. It is also very handy in
> situations where my audience guitar sound comes from the line out and
> goes into someone else's larger PA. I use the speakers in the
> acoustic amp for my personal monitor, that's all.
>
> Don' worry aobut the Yamaha PA you described. I believe that when you
> are ready for a PA investment, you'll want 15" speakers, not 12s and
> you'll be glad to have more than 6 inputs in case you are using it for
> a situation where a full band is involved. If none of that applies to
> you and you are not hosting solo shows using your PA and trying to
> cover a crowd of 100+, you probably won't miss the features that PA
> can supply. You certainly won't miss lugging it around to get
> slightly improved sound over your acoustic amp.
>
> Now for the actual brands of my gear, just for context. I ended up
> selling my Trace Elliott acoustic amp and switching to an older G&K.
> It's one of those teeny things with two 5" speakers. By itself, the
> speakers don't sound quite as good as other acoustic amps. However,
> none of the acoustic amps by themselves sounded as good as adding a
> small monitor (1x12" and a small horn) to the powered output of the
> GK. I use the GK speakers for my monitor and point the monitor
> towards the crowd.
>
> My PA system uses a Mackie board (1604VLZ) with an Alesis Wedge for
> reverb. The main speakers are JBL EON15 G2s. I use various monitors
> depending on the situation.
>
> One other investment that has pleased me very much is to carry my own
> higher end vocal mike and use it even when there is a house PA. For
> now I have an EV ND857 and there is a Sennheiser that I'd love to see
> show up in a pawn shop one day. If you are still using the standard
> sort of Shure SM58 or 57, give it a try and see what you think. I
> noticed a meaningful difference and I really like having exactly the
> same vocal mike at every performance to help make the sound more
> consistent and less distracting while I play.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:10:45 -0500, "mach1" <<g11355@hotmail...>>
> wrote:
>
> >Last month I purchased a California Blonde amp and am still very pleased
> >with it, but wonder if maybe a P.A. package might have been a wiser
choice.
> >I've been looking at the yamaha 6 channel 300 watt system which is loaded
> >with features, E.Q., digital effects, and 2 12" speakers for roughly
around
> >the same list price as the blonde amp. Anybody have any opinions on this
> >type of set up?
> >
>


From: Conrad Shiba <shibac@searnet...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amps vs. pa systems
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:27:20 -0400

As far as transporting your PA, you might want to look into the Rock 'n
Roller cart. It comes in 3 sizes, has adjustable length, can be configured
in various ways-- high stacker, hand truck, or dolly-- and folds down into a
pretty compact size. I can move my PA from the car to a performing venue in
one or two trips (the speaker and mic stands are a bit of a challenge).
Then I can put four guitar and banjo cases on it, standing up and held in
place with bungee cords. Several dealers carry these-- Full Compass, First
Quality, and Musician's Friend among others.

Conrad

"mach1" <<g11355@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:<HtScncFP4Ns3hnCjXTWcqA@netnitco...>...
>

>.... The convenience part I can give in to that for the
> sound that I get now. This unit is basically light weight compared to the
> old vintage ampeg pa system that I've owned for about 28 years.

Ground loop or PADI flaw? [13]
From: Joe Jordan <jjordan@hotpop...>
Subject: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:15:10 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet

Last night I played my first sideman gig with my new
Ultraound AG-30, set up as a personal monitor for my
mandolin.

Since the mandolin has a passive pickup, I was using my PADI
as a preamp.

I needed to send a signal to the main PA, and to the
Ultrasound, so I first ran an XLR cable to from the PADI XLR
out, and a regular instrument cable from the PADI to the
Ultrasound. This resulted in a terrible buzz/hum, especially
through the Ultrasound, but also through the PA..

Finally ended up taking the XLR Direct Out from the back of
the Ultrasound to the main PA instead of from the PADI,
which seemed to work OK, except I lost my phantom power to
the PADI.

I thought the PADI was supposed to be able to send to both
outputs simultaneously. Incorrect? Or was this an example of
the infamous ground loop? If so, how do I correct it? I'd
like to be able to phantom-power the PADI and use the
Ultrasound for instrument monitoring.

TIA,
Joe

--

Joe D. Jordan
Mobile, AL


From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: 16 Jun 2003 00:40:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Joe Jordan:

>Last night I played my first sideman gig with my new
>Ultraound AG-30, set up as a personal monitor for my
>mandolin.
>
>Since the mandolin has a passive pickup, I was using my PADI
>as a preamp.
>
>I needed to send a signal to the main PA, and to the
>Ultrasound, so I first ran an XLR cable to from the PADI XLR
>out, and a regular instrument cable from the PADI to the
>Ultrasound. This resulted in a terrible buzz/hum, especially
>through the Ultrasound, but also through the PA..
>
>Finally ended up taking the XLR Direct Out from the back of
>the Ultrasound to the main PA instead of from the PADI,
>which seemed to work OK, except I lost my phantom power to
>the PADI.
>
>I thought the PADI was supposed to be able to send to both
>outputs simultaneously. Incorrect? Or was this an example of
>the infamous ground loop? If so, how do I correct it? I'd
>like to be able to phantom-power the PADI and use the
>Ultrasound for instrument monitoring.
>
>TIA,
>Joe
>
>--
>
>Joe D. Jordan
>Mobile, AL
>

I have observed, experience, & or bitched about this for years. I ALWAYS have
60 cycles happening with my Ultrasound amp when I'm interfcaing with the PA
throgh a DI or whatever. ALWAYS. Getchu a 3/2 ground lift plug.

My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm


From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: 16 Jun 2003 03:37:59 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Joe wrote:

>Mondoslug1 wrote:
>
>>Getchu a 3/2 ground lift plug.
>
>Hi Andy,
>
>Just to be clear, are you talking about something that goes
>between the PADI and the PA, between the PADI and the
>Ultrasound, or between the Ultrasound and the wall (AC)?
>

Hey Joe, I was just talking about your run of the mill ground lift plug that
goes between the amp & AC outlet.
>Joe
>

My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:48:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

> Hey Joe, I was just talking about your run of the mill ground lift plug
that
> goes between the amp & AC outlet.
> >Joe
> >
Those are NOT ground lift plugs
there is a little U shaped tab that MUST be attached to the ground to make
those units safe
NEVER under any circumstance defete the saftey ground of a piece of gear

George


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:45:06 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Mondoslug1" <<mondoslug1@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030615204046.06564.00000757@mb-m17...>...
> Joe Jordan:
>
> >Last night I played my first sideman gig with my new
> >Ultraound AG-30, set up as a personal monitor for my
> >mandolin.
> >
> >Since the mandolin has a passive pickup, I was using my PADI
> >as a preamp.
> >
> >I needed to send a signal to the main PA, and to the
> >Ultrasound, so I first ran an XLR cable to from the PADI XLR
> >out, and a regular instrument cable from the PADI to the
> >Ultrasound. This resulted in a terrible buzz/hum, especially
> >through the Ultrasound, but also through the PA..
> >
> >Finally ended up taking the XLR Direct Out from the back of
> >the Ultrasound to the main PA instead of from the PADI,
> >which seemed to work OK, except I lost my phantom power to
> >the PADI.
> >
> >I thought the PADI was supposed to be able to send to both
> >outputs simultaneously. Incorrect? Or was this an example of
> >the infamous ground loop? If so, how do I correct it? I'd
> >like to be able to phantom-power the PADI and use the
> >Ultrasound for instrument monitoring.
> >
> >TIA,
> >Joe
> >
> >--
> >
> >Joe D. Jordan
> >Mobile, AL
> >
>
> I have observed, experience, & or bitched about this for years. I ALWAYS
have
> 60 cycles happening with my Ultrasound amp when I'm interfcaing with the
PA
> throgh a DI or whatever. ALWAYS. Getchu a 3/2 ground lift plug.
>
Never for any reason what so ever use one of those widow makers(3 to 2
adapter) unless you can verify a solid ground through the faceplate screw
and attach the ground lug there
there is a reason some units have three point plugs and reasons others dont
and to defeat the saftey grounding design of a piece of gear is a fools game
George


From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: 16 Jun 2003 11:52:45 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

gg wrote:

>"Mondoslug1" <<mondoslug1@aol...>> wrote in message
>news:<20030615204046.06564.00000757@mb-m17...>...
>> Joe Jordan:
>>
>> >Last night I played my first sideman gig with my new
>> >Ultraound AG-30, set up as a personal monitor for my
>> >mandolin.
>> >
>> >Since the mandolin has a passive pickup, I was using my PADI
>> >as a preamp.
>> >
>> >I needed to send a signal to the main PA, and to the
>> >Ultrasound, so I first ran an XLR cable to from the PADI XLR
>> >out, and a regular instrument cable from the PADI to the
>> >Ultrasound. This resulted in a terrible buzz/hum, especially
>> >through the Ultrasound, but also through the PA..
>> >
>> >Finally ended up taking the XLR Direct Out from the back of
>> >the Ultrasound to the main PA instead of from the PADI,
>> >which seemed to work OK, except I lost my phantom power to
>> >the PADI.
>> >
>> >I thought the PADI was supposed to be able to send to both
>> >outputs simultaneously. Incorrect? Or was this an example of
>> >the infamous ground loop? If so, how do I correct it? I'd
>> >like to be able to phantom-power the PADI and use the
>> >Ultrasound for instrument monitoring.
>> >
>> >TIA,
>> >Joe
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >Joe D. Jordan
>> >Mobile, AL
>> >
>>
>> I have observed, experience, & or bitched about this for years. I ALWAYS
>have
>> 60 cycles happening with my Ultrasound amp when I'm interfcaing with the
>PA
>> throgh a DI or whatever. ALWAYS. Getchu a 3/2 ground lift plug.
>>
>Never for any reason what so ever use one of those widow makers(3 to 2
>adapter) unless you can verify a solid ground through the faceplate screw
>and attach the ground lug there
>there is a reason some units have three point plugs and reasons others dont
>and to defeat the saftey grounding design of a piece of gear is a fools game
>George
>

I understand, not very smart on paper. I can never guarantee any of that of
which you mention & have been living dangerously. Unfortunatley it hums like a
bitch usually on no matter what system I'm plugged into, with whatever guitar.
No offenses to bitches everywhere. Very occasionally I could lose it with the
Raven Labs Ground switch.


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:02:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

> I understand, not very smart on paper. I can never guarantee any of that
of
> which you mention & have been living dangerously. Unfortunatley it hums
like a
> bitch usually on no matter what system I'm plugged into, with whatever
guitar.
> No offenses to bitches everywhere. Very occasionally I could lose it with
the
> Raven Labs Ground switch.

the Raven switchis a SIGNAL ground
this is like lifting the screen on a mic cable
NOT the saftey ground
one is safe to lift (the signal ground)the other is NOT
This is one of my hot buttons(safety)
there is NEVER a reason to put oneself at risk to make music
George


From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: 16 Jun 2003 16:32:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Joe wrote:

>Mondoslug1 wrote:
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>Thinking I might order a ProCo IT-1 isolation transformer
>>>for the gear bag.
>
>>Check back in after you try it on a gig going to a PA that everybody else is
>>plugged into.
>
>You ever try anything like that?
>
>Joe
>
>--
>
>Joe D. Jordan
>Mobile, AL
>

Not at any acoustic gigs in town & on the road I usually use the monitors
supplied not my amp, but I've had iso transformers put on my direct electric
rig on the road several times with very moderate success.
Looks interesting though, good luck.

My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm


From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:37:27 GMT

Joe Jordan <<jjordan@hotpop...>> wrote in
news:<l32sevkn0np1uo24554p39hmrpsj09fg1g@4ax...>:

> Steve Hawkins wrote:
>
>>"George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote in
>>news:3HnHa.7965$<0v4.695388@bgtnsc04-news...>:
>>
>>> Joe , with all respect the answer to your problem is 42
>>> George
>>
>>Joe never carries a towel.
>
> Except to UK-6.
>
> Joe
>

Joe, I think this is a PADI issue. Anytime I connected the PADI XLR out
and the PADI line out to two different destinations (two different power
supplies) I got hum. It's not an Ultrasound problem. I got the exact same
results with a different amp. However, when I connected both PADI outputs
to seperate channel inputs on my mixer (common power supply) there was no
hum. Phantom Power ON or Off made no difference in any of the setups. I
don't have a schematic of the PADI to investigate further.

Now, after doing the experiment with the PADI I decided to try it with my
Raven Labs PMB-1. I got the same exact results! Hum when using two
amplification systems (PA/amp). The Raven has a ground lift switch on it's
XLR output. When I lifted the ground everything got as quiet as a tomb!
So I believe it's a ground loop issue with signal ground. And yes, lifting
the ground to the PADI XLR Out will disable your phantom power.

Also yes, ungrounding the amp's AC power cord at the wall outlet will
probably give you the same result. It will also allow you to experience
some serious shock treatment and is damn dangerous!!!! DON"T DO IT!

I recommend using the Ultrasound direct out and buying batteries for the
PADI. Now I know why Raven Labs chose not to power their unit off Phantom
Power.

That's all from the Lab!

Steve Hawkins


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:43:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

> I recommend using the Ultrasound direct out and buying batteries for the
> PADI. Now I know why Raven Labs chose not to power their unit off Phantom
> Power.
>
> That's all from the Lab!
>
I am not a designer but it seems there is a signal ground issue at work here
the powering of properly designed units off phantom does not in of it's self
create a humm problem, even things that connect to seperate stage rigs and
pa systems
The makers of the padi need to look into this
I run all sorts of active direct boxes that are phantom powered and
interface guitars and pa systems , I never have a humm from even the
lowly(fantasticly lowly) behringer DI-100 direct box
George


From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: 18 Jun 2003 18:54:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Steve wrote:

>Hi Andy. I'm not quite sure what your saying here, but the Ultrasound
>direct out is picked off at the input. It doesn't get processed through
>the amp pre/EQ circuitry. It's basically the same as taking it from the
>PADI xlr output without the advantage of Phantom Power.
>
>Steve Hawkins
>

So I did my own little test, unscientific as it is(which it is) Not trying to
start a flame fest at all. Just in the interest of getting it right & learning
something.

I plugged my Bourgeois A2/UST into the Ultrasound, took the XLR Direct out to
a little ART Mic Pre & into the PC, set a level & recorded into Nuendo.

I then took the same guitar straight into the ART Mic Pre(bypassing the
Ultrasound) & into Nuendo, tried to match the level as best I could(which was
gobs less dbs now) & recorded.

To my ears(disclaimer) the sound is noticably different. The low end seems
hyped thru the Ultrasound's DI out & the overall sound is different. Not saying
whether it's better or worse, just noticeably different. I'm not tech guy but
there must something in line other then just a straight tap off the input jack.
Play ball!

My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm


From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:19:57 GMT

<mondoslug1@aol...> (Mondoslug1) wrote in
news:<20030618145407.22672.00000917@mb-m21...>:

> Steve wrote:
>
>>Hi Andy. I'm not quite sure what your saying here, but the Ultrasound
>>direct out is picked off at the input. It doesn't get processed
>>through the amp pre/EQ circuitry. It's basically the same as taking
>>it from the PADI xlr output without the advantage of Phantom Power.
>>
>>Steve Hawkins
>>
>
> So I did my own little test, unscientific as it is(which it is) Not
> trying to start a flame fest at all. Just in the interest of getting
> it right & learning something.
>
> I plugged my Bourgeois A2/UST into the Ultrasound, took the XLR
> Direct out to a little ART Mic Pre & into the PC, set a level &
> recorded into Nuendo.
>
> I then took the same guitar straight into the ART Mic Pre(bypassing
> the Ultrasound) & into Nuendo, tried to match the level as best I
> could(which was gobs less dbs now) & recorded.
>
> To my ears(disclaimer) the sound is noticably different. The low end
> seems hyped thru the Ultrasound's DI out & the overall sound is
> different. Not saying whether it's better or worse, just noticeably
> different. I'm not tech guy but there must something in line other
> then just a straight tap off the input jack. Play ball!

I'm going to speculate that the input impedance is different between the
Ultrasound and the ART. As Tom has stated before this affects the pickup
Frequency Response. Also, I don't know if the Ultrasound direct out is an
active or passive DI circuit. Both bring their own set of variables to the
party. I wish I had a schematic of the Ultrasound to look at. Maybe Mike
McCollum could find out?

Steve Hawkins


From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Ground loop or PADI flaw?
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:13:55 GMT

<mondoslug1@aol...> (Mondoslug1) wrote in
news:<20030618153358.18941.00001880@mb-m20...>:

> Hey Steve I hear ya, I wanted to lose the ART in the equation, believe
> me but I don't have a straight XLR into the PC but I think I did it
> some how years ago & the difference is there.
>
> If I was guessing on the DI circuit, active I would think. Is there a
> pin lift on the newer version?

I think you're right. I've played the newer versions, I love the Pro 200,
but I didn't notice if the Direct Outs had ground lift on them. I think
the Pro 200 has three Direct Outs on it!

Steve Hawkins

How to use a three to two prong adapter safely
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: How to use a three to two prong adapter safely
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:11:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

It has been put forth that a 3 prong to 2 pong adapter should be used to
eliminate hum is a rig
THIS IS A FATAL ASSUMPTION
unless you are using it properly
when you look at the adapter there is a U shape tab (metal) this needs to
be grounded
usually at the face plate screw of the outlet
BUT if you are going to do this first you will need to establish that the
faceplate screw is on a solid ground
do this with a volt ohm meter or with a piece of 18 guage lamp cord soldered
to the screw then run to a cold water pipe(these are 80% solid grounds,
only code violaters insert pvc in the cold water feed lines) )
but still verify you have a saftey ground
you would never drive your car without brakes
why would you eliminate the"brakes" in a electrical system?
George

Used a Peavey Escort system again.....
From: Brent Barkow <bbarkow.news.invalid@web2news...>
Subject: Used a Peavey Escort system again.....
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:31:55 +0200
Organization: Web2news.com

....playing for a wedding reception. I think I'd prefer the Escort to
most of the acoustic amps I've used (admittedly a small number). It has
some limitations, but sounds really good.

It's a self contained system in sort of a "pod" shape. It weighs about
50 pounds, has handles on both ends of the pod and has luggage wheels on
one end for easy transport. The bottom half (lengthwise) consists of the
mixer, mic compartment, cable compartment, and a compartment for the
speaker stands. The lid of the pod is formed by the backs of the
speakers. Very slick.

The mixer is 5 (IIRC) channels with volume sliders and bass, mid, treble
and reverb knobs (no pan). The master section has volume sliders, master
reverb and a 5-band eq. The eq has an LED above each slider that lights
if there is feedback in that band.

The whole system takes about 5 minutes to set up and tear down, and the
best part is -- it sounds good. Seems to be very accurate.

The main drawback - for me anyway - is that there is no monitor out. You
have to either put the speakers wide and slightly behind you or use one
speaker as a main and the other as a monitor. It is technically a stereo
mixer, but since there are no pans only a cd player connected to the rca
jacks on channel 5 will play in stereo.

Still, all-in-all, I think it's a great value for a street price around
$550.

That is all.

Brent
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
To contact in private, remove nn+-5o1sp8aa8mm

amp vs pa again [8]
From: wengr <wengr@worldnet...>
Subject: amp vs pa again
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:14:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

hello, I plan to start playing out some. nothing big, nursing homes, barnes
and noble, small coffee houses, etc. guitar has a highlander. sometimes I
sing but mostly instrumentals. my question is will I get a better quality of
sound from say an ultrasound or a powered cab such as a jbl g2? thanks for
any info, greg


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: amp vs pa again
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:38:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"wengr" <<wengr@worldnet...>> wrote in message
news:zKCHa.10532$<3o3.731458@bgtnsc05-news...>...
> hello, I plan to start playing out some. nothing big, nursing homes,
barnes
> and noble, small coffee houses, etc. guitar has a highlander. sometimes I
> sing but mostly instrumentals. my question is will I get a better quality
of
> sound from say an ultrasound or a powered cab such as a jbl g2? thanks for
> any info, greg
>
>
The JBL will have more projection and reach through a crowd much easier but
I bet the uS actually sounds better if used within its design limits
George


From: Ken Cashion <kcashion@datasync...>
Subject: Re: amp vs pa again
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:11:28 GMT
Organization: Datasync

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:25:14 -0400, Steve Edwards
<<sedwards@xxspringmail...>> wrote:

>You better get some major watts for
>those nursing home gigs. ;)

	VERY Funny!!  :o)
	I have performed for these crowds in both community theatre
and playing music for them.
	Re theatre...the cast called it an audience of hackers,
coughers, and spitters...and there will always be a couple sitting by
each other who will punctuate occasional lines with "WHAT DID HE SAY?"
"I THINK HE SAID 'HE DROVE THE BEER'!!" "WHAT THE HELL DOES 'HE DROVE
THE DEER' MEAN?" "NOT 'DEER'! 'BEER'!" "WHAT?!"
	Re playing for them...forget the autoharp -- "IS HE PLAYING
THAT THING?"
	Forget the plucked dulicmer -- "THAT IS THE DUMBEST DAMNED
THING I EVER SAW!!"
	This is the crowd for the banjo and loud string-band
songs...and the nastier, the more they will enjoy it.

	Ken Cashion, who hasn't gone back.  :o)	


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: amp vs pa again
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:33:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"John Youngblood" <<jyoungblood@nospam...>> wrote in message
news:190620030835412661%<jyoungblood@nospam...>...
> If the "uS" could be put on a stand it would seem to be a better
> comparison.
>
> Youngblood

 The  Ultrasound does not have a horn  that would limit its reach
though aid in its fidelity
it would be a small job to install some "t" nuts in the US to make it stand
adapter friendly
George


From: RAY BOYCE <raymond.spamoutboyce3@verizon...>
Subject: Re: amp vs pa again
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:08:35 GMT

George/Ralph/John,

good info... i agree with George... horn="throw/directivity", cone="smooth".

putting on stands helps immensely especially for cones... if Doc/US is
installing stand sockets that means they fit and fwiw they (cups)are easy to
procure. An industrial grade plumbers hole saw with a 1/2 in. drill will do
this... I've done it 10 or more times on other speakers.

CAUTION: before drilling, ALWAYS make sure to remove the speakz... last
thing you need is abrasive sawdust in the airspace next to voice coils.

Doc is always so cooperative, maybe he could help save some investigation
and get us patterns/instructions to retro our own.

"misifus" <<rseibert@cox-internet...>> wrote in message
news:<3EF207BD.5060502@cox-internet...>...
> George Gleason wrote:
>
> >"John Youngblood" <<jyoungblood@nospam...>> wrote in message
> >news:190620030835412661%<jyoungblood@nospam...>...
> >
> >
> >>If the "uS" could be put on a stand it would seem to be a better
> >>comparison.
> >>
> >>Youngblood
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The Ultrasound does not have a horn that would limit its reach
> >though aid in its fidelity
> >it would be a small job to install some "t" nuts in the US to make it
stand
> >adapter friendly
> >George
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> In point of fact, Doc Gore did do much the same thing for the UltraSound
> 50 pair that I ordered through him. He had the factory install the 1.5
> in. sockets in the bases of the amps so I can and do put them on stands.
> I understand that he was installing some for Teja Gerken at the same
time.
>
> -Ralph
>
> --
> Misifus-
> Ralph Seibert
> mailto:<rseibert@cox-internet...>
> http://www.ralphandsue.com
>
>


From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: amp vs pa again
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:51:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband

in article <3EF3AF37.3000402@cox-internet...>, misifus at
<rseibert@cox-internet...> wrote on 6/20/03 6:04 PM:

> RAY BOYCE wrote:
>
>> George/Ralph/John,
>>
>> good info... i agree with George... horn="throw/directivity", cone="smooth".
>>
>> putting on stands helps immensely especially for cones... if Doc/US is
>> installing stand sockets that means they fit and fwiw they (cups)are easy to
>> procure. An industrial grade plumbers hole saw with a 1/2 in. drill will do
>> this... I've done it 10 or more times on other speakers.
>>
>> CAUTION: before drilling, ALWAYS make sure to remove the speakz... last
>> thing you need is abrasive sawdust in the airspace next to voice coils.
>>
>> Doc is always so cooperative, maybe he could help save some investigation
>> and get us patterns/instructions to retro our own.
>>
>>
>>
>
> As a matter of fact, Doc was muttering something about factory
> conditions, sawdust control, not voiding the warranty - did I mention
> not voiding the warranty by letting the factory do it?
>
> -Ralph
>
>>
>>

    I had the factory put the 1.5" sockets on before shipment to my dealer
on a pair of 50Es. You could certainly wait until your warranty has expired
to do it yourself. Heck though, Ultrasounds have 5 year transferable
warranties. Don't you just hate such a long and flexible warranty? Give me
a 90 day warranty any day.
--
Stephen T. Boyke


From: RAY BOYCE <raymond.spamoutboyce3@verizon...>
Subject: Re: amp vs pa again
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:10:22 GMT

good point ralph... thanks.... can't say i'd blame him there... guy's gotta
protect his biz liabilities.

he did say that? good for him. certainly is my first concern when drilling.
thats why i used the strong caution.

dust control around open speakers is a very real issue. i know that if my
speaker is damaged by dust, (very easy to see on the coil), it would be my
fault in my eyes... and the last folks i'd blame is folks like Doc.

but.... the cost to ship an already-at-home amp to the factory and back (+
labor) might persuade some who know what they're doing to do for themselves.

~ray

"misifus" <<rseibert@cox-internet...>> wrote in message
news:<3EF3AF37.3000402@cox-internet...>...
> RAY BOYCE wrote:
>
> >George/Ralph/John,
> >
> >good info... i agree with George... horn="throw/directivity",
cone="smooth".
> >
> >putting on stands helps immensely especially for cones... if Doc/US is
> >installing stand sockets that means they fit and fwiw they (cups)are easy
to
> >procure. An industrial grade plumbers hole saw with a 1/2 in. drill will
do
> >this... I've done it 10 or more times on other speakers.
> >
> >CAUTION: before drilling, ALWAYS make sure to remove the speakz... last
> >thing you need is abrasive sawdust in the airspace next to voice coils.
> >
> >Doc is always so cooperative, maybe he could help save some investigation
> >and get us patterns/instructions to retro our own.
> >
> >
> >
>
> As a matter of fact, Doc was muttering something about factory
> conditions, sawdust control, not voiding the warranty - did I mention
> not voiding the warranty by letting the factory do it?
>
> -Ralph
>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Misifus-
> Ralph Seibert
> mailto:<rseibert@cox-internet...>
> http://www.ralphandsue.com
>
>


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: amp vs pa again
Date: 21 Jun 2003 19:49:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Ray,

I'll call Greg on Monday and get him to give me the instructions on how to do
it. This will save you time and trouble. If you're careful it should not be a
problem. We'll talk about the warranty issue.

Call me late Monday and I should have the info.

The Doc

Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp [10]
From: Michael Lyons <ml1776@NOSPAM-attbi...>
Subject: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:21:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband

Anyone have any experience with this amp? I have a Martin 000CXE
acoustic/electric I purchased recently and at the time I bought the
Acoustisonic 30 to go with it. I didn't realize the Acoustisonic Jr. existed
at the time. For only $120. bucks or so more at Guitar Center it has more
than twice the power of the one I just bought. So I'm thinking about doing a
return to get the Jr. instead.

Any comments on this amp would be appreciated.

I'm probably going to be picking up a Martin D-15 all mahogany guitar
sometime soon too. I played one the other day and I love the tone. It's a
real bargain for the money. The one I played had nice action and a really
good feel to it too. I was thinking of getting a sound hole pickup for this.
Any thoughts on that? Are they any good? Any particular one I ought to ask
about that would be stocked at Guitar Center? Just thought I'd toss this
question in too.

Thanks!

Michael


From: JoelT <joeltepp@ix...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:58:06 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

You're right, the Acoustasonic 30 is somewhat limited in volume.
Otherwise, both amps do a decent job in their price range. The known
fault that is common to both is the reverb section. They broke easily
on the early ones and then Fender got a large shipment of mostly
defective replacement tanks. If the amp you are buying does not have
a probelm you could be just fine right from the start and, if not, the
current supply of properly manufactured replacement parts would bail
you out. Listen for background noise when there is nothing plugged
in, the volume is set around 6+ and the reverb dial is above 50%.

Meanwhile, if you want to make a comparison to another brand just to
make sure of your personal preferences, you might take a listen to the
Marshall AS50R. Many Guitar Center outlets carry both that and the
Fender line. It's pretty close in price and features to the
Acoustasonic jr.


From: Mike brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:08:36 +1000
Organization: none

In article <<3efc9579.1974524@news...>>, <joeltepp@ix...>
(JoelT) wrote:

> You're right, the Acoustasonic 30 is somewhat limited in volume.
> Otherwise, both amps do a decent job in their price range. The known
> fault that is common to both is the reverb section. They broke easily
> on the early ones and then Fender got a large shipment of mostly
> defective replacement tanks. If the amp you are buying does not have
> a probelm you could be just fine right from the start and, if not, the
> current supply of properly manufactured replacement parts would bail
> you out. Listen for background noise when there is nothing plugged
> in, the volume is set around 6+ and the reverb dial is above 50%.
>
> Meanwhile, if you want to make a comparison to another brand just to
> make sure of your personal preferences, you might take a listen to the
> Marshall AS50R. Many Guitar Center outlets carry both that and the
> Fender line. It's pretty close in price and features to the
> Acoustasonic jr.

I compared them, and prefered the Fender, even though I am a Marshall fan
from wayback (I have a 30th Anniversary Combo).
Michael James Richard B


From: Jonathan (ihatespam) <jonathan_kendall@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:01:42 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

> Any comments on this amp would be appreciated.
>
> I'm probably going to be picking up a Martin D-15 all mahogany guitar
> sometime soon too. I played one the other day and I love the tone. It's a
> real bargain for the money. The one I played had nice action and a really
> good feel to it too. I was thinking of getting a sound hole pickup for
this.
> Any thoughts on that? Are they any good? Any particular one I ought to ask
> about that would be stocked at Guitar Center? Just thought I'd toss this
> question in too.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michael

I was playing one of those D-15's the other day at a shop... I usually like
smaller guitars, but it got me thinking that a dread might be a good thing
to own.

I have a Fishman Rare Earth humbucking soundhole pickup that I use with an
old vintage Martin that I didn't want to modify for the endpin jack, it
works pretty well so far. But on a D-15, why not just get something like an
I-beam or a PUTW under saddle pickup installed?

I've never played the Acoustisonic, but I dig my little Ultrasound AG-30 a
lot, and it puts out pretty good volume for the size. I think I paid $200.

Jonathan


From: Margaret Wilson <twokatmew@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:56:00 -0400
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com

I found the Acoustasonics way too shrill ( I play classical), and thought
they were way too hissy. I settled on an AR.Acoustic. It's very much like
the Ultrasound, very quiet and simply amplifies the natural sound of the
guitar. I thought the Fenders sounded too "processed." Ultrasound makes a
50w model that has a mic channel and Alesis digital effects, DI onboard as
well as stereo and mono line out. A fantastic amp at a great value IMNSHO.
:-)

BTW, there are now two models of the 30w Ultrasound. The practice amp model
is $149, while the non "P" model has line- and direct out for $179. Amazing
amp for that price.

Regards,

Margaret

"Jonathan" <<jonathan_kendall@h...>(ihatespam)mail.com> wrote in message
news:<vfn94pbsiofe7d@corp...>...
>
> I've never played the Acoustisonic, but I dig my little Ultrasound AG-30 a
> lot, and it puts out pretty good volume for the size. I think I paid $200.
>
> Jonathan
>
>


From: walterlane <lane@walterlane...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:43:12 -0400

I previewed one in a guitar store. For the money it had a lot of
circuit hiss IMHO. I ended up getting a Behringer acoustic amp. Lots
of features but also a good deal of circuit noise. Sounds good and I
got it at a good price. Now, however, I giving serious thought to the
100 watt, 4 speaker Ultrasound.

--

 http://www.walterlane.com
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_imperials/
"Follow The Men With The Music"

"Michael Lyons" <<ml1776@NOSPAM-attbi...>> wrote in message
news:keLKa.27457$<XG4.19529@rwcrnsc...>...
> Anyone have any experience with this amp? I have a Martin 000CXE
> acoustic/electric I purchased recently and at the time I bought the
> Acoustisonic 30 to go with it. I didn't realize the Acoustisonic Jr.
existed
> at the time. For only $120. bucks or so more at Guitar Center it has
more
> than twice the power of the one I just bought. So I'm thinking about
doing a
> return to get the Jr. instead.
>
> Any comments on this amp would be appreciated.
>
> I'm probably going to be picking up a Martin D-15 all mahogany
guitar
> sometime soon too. I played one the other day and I love the tone.
It's a
> real bargain for the money. The one I played had nice action and a
really
> good feel to it too. I was thinking of getting a sound hole pickup
for this.
> Any thoughts on that? Are they any good? Any particular one I ought
to ask
> about that would be stocked at Guitar Center? Just thought I'd toss
this
> question in too.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michael
>
>


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:34:04 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

walterlane wrote:

>I previewed one in a guitar store. For the money it had a lot of
>circuit hiss IMHO. I ended up getting a Behringer acoustic amp. Lots
>of features but also a good deal of circuit noise. Sounds good and I
>got it at a good price. Now, however, I giving serious thought to the
>100 watt, 4 speaker Ultrasound.
>
>
>

You might want to try before you buy. To my ears the four speaker, 100W
UltraSound has a different sound than the two speaker 50W models do.

 For my use, I bought an AS-50D2 with an AS-50E, that is, a 50W with 
another 50W extension cab. To me this sounds better than one 100W
model, and doesn't cost much more. Of course, the best of them is the
200W pro model, but now we're talking about a whole different price range.

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


From: Mike brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:06:18 +1000
Organization: none

In article <keLKa.27457$<XG4.19529@rwcrnsc...>>, "Michael Lyons"
<<ml1776@NOSPAM-attbi...>> wrote:

> Anyone have any experience with this amp? I have a Martin 000CXE
> acoustic/electric I purchased recently and at the time I bought the
> Acoustisonic 30 to go with it. I didn't realize the Acoustisonic Jr. existed
> at the time. For only $120. bucks or so more at Guitar Center it has more
> than twice the power of the one I just bought. So I'm thinking about doing a
> return to get the Jr. instead.
>
> Any comments on this amp would be appreciated.
>
> I'm probably going to be picking up a Martin D-15 all mahogany guitar
> sometime soon too. I played one the other day and I love the tone. It's a
> real bargain for the money. The one I played had nice action and a really
> good feel to it too. I was thinking of getting a sound hole pickup for this.
> Any thoughts on that? Are they any good? Any particular one I ought to ask
> about that would be stocked at Guitar Center? Just thought I'd toss this
> question in too.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michael

I have an Acoustasonic Junior and like it. I only play smallish places,
and it is more than adequate. It will take a guitar and a mic, or two
guitars, though the second guitar through the line in on the mic circuit
isn't as good.
I had a D-15, and liked it, but think that the 0015 is nicer. More
versatile,and a better balance.
Michael James Richard B


From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:45:50 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:21:52 GMT, "Michael Lyons"
<<ml1776@NOSPAM-attbi...>> brewed up the following, and served it to
the group (RMMGA):

>Anyone have any experience with this amp? I have a Martin 000CXE
>acoustic/electric I purchased recently and at the time I bought the
>Acoustisonic 30 to go with it. I didn't realize the Acoustisonic Jr. existed
>at the time. For only $120. bucks or so more at Guitar Center it has more
>than twice the power of the one I just bought. So I'm thinking about doing a
>return to get the Jr. instead.
>
>Any comments on this amp would be appreciated.
>
>I'm probably going to be picking up a Martin D-15 all mahogany guitar
>sometime soon too. I played one the other day and I love the tone. It's a
>real bargain for the money. The one I played had nice action and a really
>good feel to it too. I was thinking of getting a sound hole pickup for this.
>Any thoughts on that? Are they any good? Any particular one I ought to ask
>about that would be stocked at Guitar Center? Just thought I'd toss this
>question in too.

Michael--There's been a lot of good info down here, and I don't have a
whole lot to add, but I've used my Acoustasonic Jr. for several years
now with no problems in the reverb department. I'd heard there were
some bum units out there, so keep your ears peeled. The Jr. is a nice
little unit--I've used it in a small pub situation, and a couple of
times had to use it for a PA when the club's PA was co-opted for
another activity. It'll fill a small room in a pinch. Not as good as
a PA, but better than nothing.

For just acoustic sound, I've always been pretty happy with it. Never
really had much problem with the hiss; it's there, but not really
overwhelming--maybe I just lucked out.

Now, some folks have mentioned Ultrasounds. If they'd been available
around here when I was amp shopping, there's no doubt in my mind that
I'd be playing through one. Magnificent amps. Played through several
in Texas; they are top-shelf equipment.

-----
"Do we find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground

 Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."
            --Crosby, Stills, and Nash
       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: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustisonic Jr. Amp
Date: 29 Jun 2003 18:01:18 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:21:52 GMT, "Michael Lyons"
><<ml1776@NOSPAM-attbi...>> brewed up the following, and served it to
>the group (RMMGA):
>
>>Anyone have any experience with this amp? I have a Martin 000CXE
>>acoustic/electric I purchased recently and at the time I bought the
>>Acoustisonic 30 to go with it. I didn't realize the Acoustisonic Jr. existed
>>at the time. For only $120. bucks or so more at Guitar Center it has more
>>than twice the power of the one I just bought. So I'm thinking about doing a
>>return to get the Jr. instead.
>>
>>Any comments on this amp would be appreciated.
>>
>>I'm probably going to be picking up a Martin D-15 all mahogany guitar
>>sometime soon too. I played one the other day and I love the tone. It's a
>>real bargain for the money. The one I played had nice action and a really
>>good feel to it too. I was thinking of getting a sound hole pickup for this.
>>Any thoughts on that? Are they any good? Any particular one I ought to ask
>>about that would be stocked at Guitar Center? Just thought I'd toss this
>>question in too.
>
>Michael--There's been a lot of good info down here, and I don't have a
>whole lot to add, but I've used my Acoustasonic Jr. for several years
>now with no problems in the reverb department. I'd heard there were
>some bum units out there, so keep your ears peeled. The Jr. is a nice
>little unit--I've used it in a small pub situation, and a couple of
>times had to use it for a PA when the club's PA was co-opted for
>another activity. It'll fill a small room in a pinch. Not as good as
>a PA, but better than nothing.
>
>For just acoustic sound, I've always been pretty happy with it. Never
>really had much problem with the hiss; it's there, but not really
>overwhelming--maybe I just lucked out.
>
>Now, some folks have mentioned Ultrasounds. If they'd been available
>around here when I was amp shopping, there's no doubt in my mind that
>I'd be playing through one. Magnificent amps. Played through several
>in Texas; they are top-shelf equipment.
>
>-----
>"Do we find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground
> Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."
> --Crosby, Stills, and Nash
>
> 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...
>
>

Last gig out I went from my guitar to a little mixer into the front of the
Ultrasound 50 & seemed to worked really well. Tons o level

My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

Tube Amps ? [3]
From: Al <migouel@videotron...>
Subject: Tube Amps ?
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:43:17 -0400

Dear Friend

Since I join this group I have learn so much it's unreal!
Here one question that's been bugging me for a wile now:
You guy talk about Tube Amp a lot and their benefits, is there such thing as
Acoustic Tube Guitar Amps and if so can you talk about them PLEASE.

Alain


From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Tube Amps ?
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:09:48 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Al" <<migouel@videotron...>> wrote in
news:eUoMa.39479$<104.458308@weber...>:

> Dear Friend
>
> Since I join this group I have learn so much it's unreal!
> Here one question that's been bugging me for a wile now:
> You guy talk about Tube Amp a lot and their benefits, is there such
> thing as Acoustic Tube Guitar Amps and if so can you talk about them
> PLEASE.
>
> Alain

There is only one dedicated "acoustic guitar tube amp" on the market --
the Rivera Sedona (actually it's a series of several related amps and
accessories). It's designed as more of a crossover amp for people who
need to have both clean, full-range acoustic guitar amplification, and
also traditional electric guitar tones on the same gig. It's like a dual
channel Fender electric guitar amp, with the addition of a tweeter you
can switch in for acoustic (or out for electric guitar), and a semi-
parametric EQ (notch filter) for controlling acoustic guitar feedback.

I have the original Sedona combo model. I've had it for about 6 years
now. Here's the product info page:

http://www.rivera.com/prod_sedona.htm

The "Pros" for this amp:

* Decent tone for both acoustic and electric playing, if your
guitar/pickup already sounds good and doesn't need extreme EQ help. It's
really the only amp out there that can double on both acoustic and
electric guitar in a single, reasonably portable box. The electric tones
would need some outside help for heavy distortion players, but for blues
or jazz electric guitar, it's great.

* I like the way this amp lets you use just a tiny bit of preamp tube
overdrive even on my acoustic guitar. It takes some of the harsh edge
off the top frequencies of saddle or contact-type pickups, while still
providing a "hi fi" tone. You don't want to overdo it, but in small
doses I like the way it sounds.

* It includes a very nice tube-driven D.I. I use that now mainly as a
bass guitar D.I. for recording. Very clean, very "warm" sounding.

The "Cons" for this amp:

* It's very expensive. This is one of those "you get what you pay for"
things. It's hand-wired, very rugged, about as bulletproof as a tube amp
gets. I think I paid something like $1,600 for the amp, new. Rivera
released a less expensive version of the amp a while back (probably
because they weren't selling many), but I don't know what it sounds
like.

* It's heavy, something like 65 lbs, even though the amp is a small
single 12" combo format. That's partly the heavy chassis, but it's also
the massive magnet used in the main 12" speaker, and the thick plywood
used for the cabinet. If I was buying this amp again, I think I'd go for
the (newer) separate head model, and then get the speaker cab
separately. It's a back-buster, for a geezer like me.

* It lacks a little in bass response... althought that's a complaint I
have about all "acoustic guitar amps" compared to a PA system. Rivera
sells both an matched extension cabinet and a powered sub cabinet for
the amp to fix that, but I found a kludgey solution. I just used a BBE
enhancer effect to add more bottom end.

I've retired the Sedona to my home studio now, and may sell it one of
these days. I keep it around mainly to remind myself what a "real" tube
amp sounds like with electric guitar. My current solution now for
amplifying both acoustic and electric guitar, is a more versatile and
lightweight combination of Roland VG-88 and some Mackie SRM450 powered
speakers.

Bottom line: this is the ONLY tube-based "acoustic guitar amp" I know
of. It's good... especially if you're a tube freak, and if you also need
to use it for electric guitar at the same time. It's the only amp that
does both. But there are some limitations. If you just want to get some
"tube sound" in your acoustic guitar amplification, there are other ways
to do it. For example, on the cheap end, get a Presonus "Acousti-Q"
preamp. At the higher end, get a Demeter tube DI to run ahead of the
rest of your rig (about $500). Or get a Demeter HBP-1 tube preamp
(designed for bass, but I'll bet it makes a nice acoustic guitar
preamp)... that's about $700. For acoustic guitar "tube sound" it's
probably best to focus on gear like this, that puts the tube in a front-
end preamp, and doesn't force you to haul around a heavy tube amp power
stage that really makes more sense if you're playing electric guitar.

<whew> That was long, sorry. But tube gear is fun to talk about. :-)

--
Mike Barrs


From: Wade Hampton Miller <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Tube Amps ?
Date: 02 Jul 2003 19:39:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Alain -

Tube amps have benefits for electric guitar tone, but I've never known an
acoustic guitarist who felt that they provided an accurate amplification of
acoustic guitar tone. I've certainly never cared for it, at least not as a
primary amplification method.

So if there are, in fact, tube amps designed with acoustic guitar in mind, I'm
not aware of them. They don't command any sort of noticeable market share,
that's for sure.

Hope that makes sense.

Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska

Remove the "Howdy" to reply...

Fender Acoustasonic 30 Guitar Amplifier?? [4]
From: Al <migouel@videotron...>
Subject: Fender Acoustasonic 30 Guitar Amplifier??
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:49:05 -0400

In the paper today here in Ottawa Canada there is one for sale at $300.00
Can Fund and I'm real interested in going for a try, I see that it's for one
guitar input and one mic input, my question is; can you plug a piedzo and a
magnetic pickup at the mic input?

Also what if anyone here as one can you tell me why should I buy this one
also it's this a good price?

Thanks

Alain


From: Montego <TVillemure@aol...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustasonic 30 Guitar Amplifier??
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:43:32 -0400

Hi Al,

I used to have a Fender Acoustasonic 30. If I remember right the second
channel is XLR so you would need a DI if you wanted to connect two guitars
to it. The amp sounds good, but it is not loud at all. Make sure that you
try it turned up a little before you buy...

T

"Al" <<migouel@videotron...>> wrote in message
news:eFmOa.43870$<Il3.1214733@wagner...>...
> In the paper today here in Ottawa Canada there is one for sale at $300.00
> Can Fund and I'm real interested in going for a try, I see that it's for
one
> guitar input and one mic input, my question is; can you plug a piedzo and
a
> magnetic pickup at the mic input?


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustasonic 30 Guitar Amplifier??
Date: 08 Jul 2003 18:45:29 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I agree that the price seems high for a used 30. You might want to look around
to verify that.

The Doc


From: Rick Homan <rick_homan@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Fender Acoustasonic 30 Guitar Amplifier??
Date: 9 Jul 2003 05:41:55 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

In and around Philadelphia, the Acoustasonic 30 goes for US$300 new.
Convert to Canadian to see if the price is good for used.

I have used one for two years and I like it well. My signal path is
Tacoma Archtop with EMG humbucker->Fishman Pro preamp->Acoustasomic
30. This is plenty of power for my regular coffee house gig with a
vocalist (she uses the mic chanel). I am not a techie, but I think the
Acoustasonic's design must presume use of a preamp, either built into
your A-E guitar or external like mine.

When I have played with bass, drums, horn and 3-4 singers, I use it as
a monitor: it faces me and I run a cable from the "Line Out" jack to
the PA mixing board. I can hear myself, everyone can hear me. That
line out jack is also coming in handy for recording; same signal path
as above and cable "Line Out" to "Unbalanced" input on Zoom MRS-1000
digital recorder.

So, I have found it quite useful, though I am not above wondering
whether another acoustic amp might sound cleaner, less Fender
mid-rangy. Of course, that way lies madness and a bigger budget for
things like UltraSound, etc.

Good luck!
Rick Homan

"Al" <<migouel@videotron...>> wrote in message news:<eFmOa.43870$<Il3.1214733@wagner...>>...
> In the paper today here in Ottawa Canada there is one for sale at $300.00
> Can Fund and I'm real interested in going for a try, I see that it's for one
> guitar input and one mic input, my question is; can you plug a piedzo and a
> magnetic pickup at the mic input?
>
> Also what if anyone here as one can you tell me why should I buy this one
> also it's this a good price?
>
> Thanks
>
> Alain

AER experience/report
From: Carlos Alden <calden3@msn...>
Subject: AER experience/report
Date: 7 Jul 2003 21:06:35 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Hey all:

Reporting my first gig experience with the AER Compact 60. As you
may well remember I reported in this very newsgroup a couple of months
ago that I broke down and purchased an AER 60 after getting tired of
lugging around my Genz Benz Shenandoah. It was with some trepidation
that I chose this amp because of the price, but it sounded so good
with my playing style.

This gig is one I've done many times before at the local children's
museum. I sit and do my repertoire for a couple of hours, in the
little tots play area. I get a collection of Moms and Dads and wee
ones, some of whom listen and some of whom don't, and there is stuff
happening in the background. Sometimes no one is there. It's all
cool. For past gigs I've done it bareback (totally acoustic), and
with no one around the guitar and vocals are plenty loud. But with a
few kids and adults I suddenly realize that I am straining my voice.
Last time I did this gig I restrained myself from singing for a day or
two afterwards.

So this time I marched in with my AER and after surverying the space
even wondered if I needed it. "Nah," I thought to myself, "it's
silly to plug this thing in." But it was so small and unobstrusive
that I set it up anyway. I started playing and singing,and after a
few songs I even wondered if it was on, the sound was so natural.
Just like me, only.....a bit more.

As kids started to come and go, I realized how valuable it was to have
this thing there. I did not have to strain at all, just move closer
to the mic. A couple of little girls really dug what I was doing,
and sort of curled up on the foam chair next to me to listen. This
was RIGHT in front of the AER, and it wasn't so loud that they noticed
it. I have heard this about the AER before, that it seems somewhat
omnidirectional in output, and this seemed to be true about it in
this case.

Yeah, I know this could have been done with a cheaper amp - the
Ultrasound comes to mind, and others have said good things about the
Marshall among others as well. But there was something so right about
this little black cube that simply made more of me fill that space in
the right way. Made me smile, especially when I packed up to go and
slung the little bugger over my shoulder. Now all I need is a headset
mic and I can dispense with the mic stand.

As an added bonus that I found about this amp, I have started
practicing with a mic and headphones. The output is exceptionally
clean and clear, and with my AT 4033 I have a very good sense of what
I am doing with voice and guitar.

Carlos

US/UK Acoustic Amp [4]
From: mwpannell <mwpannellno-spam@yahoo...>
Subject: US/UK Acoustic Amp
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:57:17 -0400
Organization: Cox Communications

I have a friend moving from the US to the UK in the next couple of
months. He is looking for a good acoustic amp to buy and take over with
him and was seeking some advice. Having lived in the UK several years
back myself, I reminded him there is an electrical difference he should
keep in mind. He said couldn't he just use the outlet
adapter/transformer. I would frown on this long term, but then again he
will probably be only playing through it several hours a week as opposed
to five hours a night six nights a week.

Can some of you from both sides of the pond offer some advice? (Geez--is
that the dumbest question ever put to this list?) Should he buy here or
there? Money is a factor, but so is good sound and long amp life.

What is the cost these days of a good 30-watt or so acoustic amp in the
UK? And what models do you suggest for purchase over there?
Does anyone make a reasonably priced dually-transformed system?
Has Ultrasound addressed this and/or are they available in the UK?
Prices if so?
To my surprise, I've heard good reports on Marshals, how much do they
run?

Any thoughts may be helpful!

Michael


From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: US/UK Acoustic Amp
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 15:21:53 GMT

mwpannell wrote:
> What is the cost these days of a good 30-watt or so acoustic
> amp in the UK? And what models do you suggest for purchase
> over there?
> Does anyone make a reasonably priced dually-transformed
> system? Has Ultrasound addressed this and/or are they
> available in the UK? Prices if so? To my surprise, I've
> heard good reports on Marshals, how much do they
> run?

I bought a Marshall tube amp when I lived in the UK a few years ago, and was
able to convert it to US current quite easily on my return to the States.
The transformer was capable of utilizing either current, so it only required
re-routing one wire, and using a US plug.

I suspect that most producers of amplifiers that sell in both the US and
Europe use a similar approach...it would be worth a phone call to the
customer support desk to find out.

OTOH, while I was in the UK, an American friend used his US-spec Yamaha
solid state amp by plugging in through a transformer (still does...he's been
there 9 years now), and has had no ill effects. A simple plug converter
will NOT work, though.

Most acoustic amps will be cheaper in the US than in the UK...don't know
about Marshalls, since they're manufactured there. At the time I bought
mine (8 years ago), prices were roughly equal on both sides of the pond.

Hope this helps,

Mike Pugh


From: Michael McCollum <mccollum@cox...>
Subject: Re: US/UK Acoustic Amp
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:19:11 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

"No Busking" <<nobusking@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:lqWOa.676$<5o5.523317@news1...>...
> mwpannell wrote:
> > What is the cost these days of a good 30-watt or so acoustic
> > amp in the UK? And what models do you suggest for purchase
> > over there?
> > Does anyone make a reasonably priced dually-transformed
> > system? Has Ultrasound addressed this and/or are they
> > available in the UK? Prices if so? To my surprise, I've
> > heard good reports on Marshals, how much do they
> > run?

UltraSound amps are available in 220/120v as needed. Just ask at the time of
purchase. There is no additional charge ('scuse the pun) for the voltage
conversion. You'll need to purchase the voltage appropriate cord if you're
taking it abroad though. They can be had at any place that sells computer
cords, etc.

Mike


From: Julian Templeman <julian@templeman-consulting...>
Subject: Re: US/UK Acoustic Amp
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:53:03 +0100

Got an Ultrasound here in London that works just fine. Far as I'm
aware no-one imports them here -- gap in the market for some
entrepreneurial type -- but they work just fine.

I've not heard anyone seriously dislike the Marshall, and several
people have recommended the Ashdown Acoustic Radiator.

Looking on the web, I can see the Marshal 50W for about 215UKP, the
Ashdown for 399. AER are also very good but they're pricey -- nearly
600 UKP for the 60W Compact.

jt
in london

Templeman Consulting Ltd.
London and North Wales

Amp sound off [13]
From: Tom Coleman <colemat@hotmail...>
Subject: Amp sound off
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:38:50 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online

Completely fed up with my ACX1000 (yeah, you get what you pay for, I know)
so now that EBay has gratefully taken that one off my hands I'm in the
market for something, say, without the hum. I need it to accomodate an old
Barcus Berry under the saddle of my classical and a Fishman Blender in my
12-string.

I'm open to recommendations as well as warnings. Yes, I have a budget, but I
can dream.

Thanks,

Tom


From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:46:32 -0400

Hi Tim,

Give us a few more requirements. e.g:
- how much power?
- what is your budget?
- type of venues you expect to play
- solo or band?
- ever need to send the amp to a board, recording deck or house PA?

That said, I'm still happy with my AER Compact 60 that I bought about a year
ago. Expensive at $850, but it suits my coffeehouse gig needs and:
- works well with my Fishman Rare Earth Humbucker soundhole pickup. Guitar
input has low/hi impedance switch to match active/passive pickups.
- has a second mic/line input that I use for a vocal or instrument mic as
needed
- has a tuner output that has proven very handy
- has a DI output for a board, recording deck or PA.
- has plenty of volume with a very clean, tight tone
- is incredibly light (19 lbs.) & small (even came with a gig bag).

Most of all, it is absolutely the quietest amp I've ever heard. With
nothing plugged in, I have to max the master and either input before hearing
a slight bit of hiss. No hum. If I get any hum, it's from external sources
like dimmer switches bleeding into my signal chain. Never the amp.

Before choosing the AER, I test drove these amps:
- Crate CA-30 (lots of bells and whistles, but too noisy)
- Ultrasound 50 (a strong competitor to the AER. Significantly less
expensive. Nice airy tone, but AER had more volume.)
- Strawberry Blonde (I preferred the AER and Ultrasound tone)

And, for what it's worth, even Jorma Kaukonen approved of it when I let him
take for a spin at his guitar camp in Ohio. :-)

All the best,

Steve

"Tom Coleman" <<colemat@hotmail...>.> wrote in message
news:_MCQa.52946$<OZ2.9135@rwcrnsc...>...
> Completely fed up with my ACX1000 (yeah, you get what you pay for, I know)
> so now that EBay has gratefully taken that one off my hands I'm in the
> market for something, say, without the hum. I need it to accomodate an old
> Barcus Berry under the saddle of my classical and a Fishman Blender in my
> 12-string.
>
> I'm open to recommendations as well as warnings. Yes, I have a budget, but
I
> can dream.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
>


From: Tom Coleman <colemat@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:40:09 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online

Yeah, I'm skimpy on the stats, I know, because I'm not sure where I'm going
from here.

But basically, I'd like a system capable of filling a small church to a
decent size coffeehouse (about a hundred people). Solo with mike. Might want
to hook into house PA, but probably no board, or rarely.

The Berhlinger was able to fill the space adequately, but at that level the
buzz or hum was pretty apparent. And in a church that just won't do.

Between the two venues I think the church would be more important, so quiet
is probably paramount. Next is volume.

The AER sounds like it would fit the bill nicely, but the price tag will
probably scare me off unless I can find a used one. I've got the $250 I got
for the Berhlinger and another couple of hundred or so to throw after
something decent.

I've looked at the Crate, too, and found it to be too much. Same with an
Acoustasonic, although the Jr looked OK. Didn't play it enough to form an
opinion. The ACX was just so much cheaper. Now I know why.

Thanks for the help, Steve.

Tom


From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:39:39 -0400

Hi Tom,

Check out the Ultrasound 50. It may have enough volume for your needs and
you might find one within your price range (when I looked street price
ranged from $430 to $549). They really have a nice tone and are very quiet
with respect to extraneous noise as well.

Lots of folks that post here have 'em and sing their praises.

All the best,

Steve

"Tom Coleman" <<colemat@hotmail...>.> wrote in message
news:ZqFQa.61666$<N7.7360@sccrnsc...>...
> Yeah, I'm skimpy on the stats, I know, because I'm not sure where I'm
going
> from here.
>
> But basically, I'd like a system capable of filling a small church to a
> decent size coffeehouse (about a hundred people). Solo with mike. Might
want
> to hook into house PA, but probably no board, or rarely.
>
> The Berhlinger was able to fill the space adequately, but at that level
the
> buzz or hum was pretty apparent. And in a church that just won't do.
>
> Between the two venues I think the church would be more important, so
quiet
> is probably paramount. Next is volume.
>
> The AER sounds like it would fit the bill nicely, but the price tag will
> probably scare me off unless I can find a used one. I've got the $250 I
got
> for the Berhlinger and another couple of hundred or so to throw after
> something decent.
>
> I've looked at the Crate, too, and found it to be too much. Same with an
> Acoustasonic, although the Jr looked OK. Didn't play it enough to form an
> opinion. The ACX was just so much cheaper. Now I know why.
>
> Thanks for the help, Steve.
>
> Tom
>
>


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: 15 Jul 2003 17:33:09 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<Check out the Ultrasound 50. It may have enough volume for your needs and
you might find one within your price range (when I looked street price
ranged from $430 to $549). They really have a nice tone and are very quiet
with respect to extraneous noise as well.>>

I tried one. IMHO, it was nice for guitar alone, but underpowered for a
"little PA" kind of use, including vocals. The 100-watter might well cure the
problem, though.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: 15 Jul 2003 18:47:57 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

On Friday we are introducing a new PRO-100 at NAMM. It has all of the
electronics that the PRO-200 has but only 100 Watts RMS. BTW it will have a
10" Eminience Speaker with Horn. I believe this will answer all of your needs
and then some.

The Doc


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: 15 Jul 2003 17:31:50 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<Yeah, I'm skimpy on the stats, I know, because I'm not sure where I'm going
from here.

But basically, I'd like a system capable of filling a small church to a
decent size coffeehouse (about a hundred people). Solo with mike. Might want
to hook into house PA, but probably no board, or rarely.>>

My Trace-Elliot TA100R does that nicely....even covers an outdoor deck.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: John Bjorkman <desert2000@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: 14 Jul 2003 15:01:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Tom,

Well, since you're dreaming...

See if you can find a Fishman Acoustic Performer Pro. They're not
made any more, but Fishman is supposedly working on something new,
plus they still service the APP. New they were just over $1000.
Weighs a little under 30 pounds, 240 watts, adjustable tweeter, can
handle either two inputs (one can be mic, creating the possibility of
3 inputs: two 1/4" one XLR) or split a stereo input, line outs
independent of speaker, effects in/outs, 1/8" stereo input for CD
player, freq cut, etc. etc. etc. Great little box that can also be
chained to their twin APP Monitor.

peace and joy,
jbj

"Tom Coleman" <<colemat@hotmail...>.> wrote in message news:<_MCQa.52946$<OZ2.9135@rwcrnsc...>>...
> Completely fed up with my ACX1000 (yeah, you get what you pay for, I know)
> so now that EBay has gratefully taken that one off my hands I'm in the
> market for something, say, without the hum. I need it to accomodate an old
> Barcus Berry under the saddle of my classical and a Fishman Blender in my
> 12-string.
>
> I'm open to recommendations as well as warnings. Yes, I have a budget, but I
> can dream.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom


From: jennifer robinson <allrobinsons@optusnet...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:40:11 +1000

Tom,
save your pennies and go for the AER compact 60.Tommy Emmanuel uses one on
stage even my acoustic guitar with the L.R.Baggs Dual Source sounds
wonderful through the AER. For fingerstyle guitar it`s acoustic tone at its
best sound.
you will not regret it.
Gazza in Oz.

"Tom Coleman" <<colemat@hotmail...>.> wrote in message
news:_MCQa.52946$<OZ2.9135@rwcrnsc...>...
> Completely fed up with my ACX1000 (yeah, you get what you pay for, I know)
> so now that EBay has gratefully taken that one off my hands I'm in the
> market for something, say, without the hum. I need it to accomodate an old
> Barcus Berry under the saddle of my classical and a Fishman Blender in my
> 12-string.
>
> I'm open to recommendations as well as warnings. Yes, I have a budget, but
I
> can dream.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
>


From: Joe Jordan <jjordan@hotpop...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:35:58 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet

Ultraamps wrote:

>I am really pleased with it's performance. This past week at CAAS we had a lot
>of folks put it thru it's paces and the results were good.

I'll bet! I'm looking forward to kicking the tires on it
this weekend.

I'm guessing the PRO-100 is a good bit smaller and lighter
than my AG-100D?

Joe

--

Joe D. Jordan
Mobile, AL


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: 15 Jul 2003 19:58:05 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Actually Joe, the PRO-100 is in the same size cabinet as the PRO-200. We did
this because of the real estate we needed for the electronics. It weighs in at
forty pounds.

The Doc


From: James T. Kirby <kirby@udel...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:07:51 -0400
Organization: university of delaware

There is a Genz-Benz 85 watt sitting in the floorspace next to me at Friday
night band practice. Unfortunately, the guy next to me is plugged into it,
rather than me. :^( I love this amp, and I'd certainly go for the 100 watt
version out now if I had the resources. Unfortunately, I don't have access to
any Ultrasounds locally, so I can't give you any A/B information.

A review of various amps in Acoustic Guitar gave the Genz-Benz high marks as a
vocal amplifier as well - easily handled in the two-channel arrangement. I
would concur with the review.

Kirby

Tom Coleman wrote:
> Hey Jeff,
>
> Pardon my neophyte nature, but I've never heard of a Genz Benz before, but
> I'm quite intrigued. Thanks for the update.
>
> Can anyone else attest to this amp? Sure sounds like a good way to go. Found
> a Shen 100 for a bit less than $600.00. Does anyone know a dealer in the
> Dallas area where I could hear one?
>

--
James T. Kirby
email: <kirby@udel...>
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby


From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@adelphia...>
Subject: Re: Amp sound off
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:37:41 GMT

Jeff Hill wrote:

> Hello Tom,
>
> I love my Genz Benz 85 watt model, gig with it 4-6 times a month. I
> also power a monitor that can be used as an extension cab. Its quiet
> and has great sound with good EQ on both channels multiple output
> options for plugging into PA. When I bought it over a year ago I
> compared it to the Ultrasound and AER, I actually liked it better
than
> both. Of course opinions vary and it is larger and heavier. Dollar
> wise I'll bet its in your ball park, I think you can pick one up new
> for around $550.

I have the 85W Shenandoah too. I really like it. I wrote a bit of a
review when I bought it which I'll re-post with minor updates if
neccessary.

Frank Wiewandt

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----

The GB Shen is a great amp IMO. I was using a Marshall AS50R & sold it
before I bought the GB. I needed (re: wanted ;-) a combo that works
well for both acoustic guitar & vocals. That seems to require a pretty
specific set of features to perform both well. The GB Shen has the
most flexible input/output capability of any of the combo amps I found
in the $500 - $650 range (more expensive ones, too).
It has 2 channels in, both with unbalanced 1/4" & balanced XLR with
phantom power. In theory you could use all 4 inputs simultaneously,
provided you have a gain control (probably from a guitar preamp) for
at least one of the sources in each channel. In a pinch, I guess this
could allow 2 performers to play/sing through just 1 amp, like a
mini-PA I suppose. More realistically, though, I think it gives the
solo performer a lot of flexability. Currently I have my guitar(s) run
into ch 1 & my vocal mic into ch 2. I suspect that's how most would
use it. I really like the ability to plug condenser mics into the amp
without needing a phantom power box inline. I really like this
feature when I use a condenser for guitar (GT AM40 or MXL1000) & a
condenser for my voice (MXL1000 for the time being) at the same time!
I'm not sure if there is another combo amp out there (at least close
to the price of the GB Shen) that will let you plug 2 mics requiring
phantom power straight into the amp without add ons. If I were greedy,
I'd want a third channel with the same capabilities so I could run
both sides of my dual source guitar PUs (or 2 guitars for that matter)
into separate channels & still have one open for vocals. WOW, that
would be somethin' special!

Each channel also has it's own active EQ. Very flexible Low, Mid (with
freq. sweep) & High. The Alesis Digital effects are assignable to
either or both channel, a feature I like that is not available on
the only other amp (Ultrasound AG50DS2) that was in the running for
me. I normally run my guitar's dual source with one PU (Fishman Rare
Earth Hummer) through DOD AcousTec, but generally like to add a bit of
reverb just to my vocals. I can do this without adding anything I may
not want into the guitar side. Important to me, at least. The only
thing better IMO would be 2 effects generators, assignable
individually or in combination, to either or both channels. Yeah, OK,
so I can dream, too!

Outputs are equally flexible. There are 2 speaker outs from the amp.
The first will generally go back to the built-in speakers & the second
can power an extension cab. At some point I'll probably get the GB
EXT12 that is designed to match the GB112. There's also the normal
Effects send/return, too with provision for a footswitch. It has the
most comprehensive DI outs that I've seen on any combo. Each of the 3
DIs (yes, that's *3* DIs) has an unbalanced 1/4" & a balanced XLR out.
There's also a ground lift switch. The first DI gives you the
combined, post-EQ signal from ch1 + ch2. This is, in effect, your
"finished" signal. I'll probably use this when the amp is used as my
monitor & the output is going to, say, the house PA. The other 2 DIs
are for each channel separately, post channel volume, but pre-EQ.
Interesting possibilities!

Of course none of this matters if the amp itself is a dog, right? I
bought mine from FQMS in Louisville, KY when I was there recently.
Even though Tony Rairden made me play virtually ALL the great
guitars they stock ;-), I had actually gone there to audition the
amps. Tony set me up with a guitar (Martin 16 series something, one of
the few he had already set up with a PU) & let me alone in the amp
room with the GB Shen, Ultrasound AG50DS, & SWR amps. I had eliminated
the SWRs mostly because of cost, & regrettably never plugged into the
California Blonde that was there. That left me with the 2 amps that
were in serious contention for my $s. The Ultras have such a great
reputation for their sound qualities that I expected to leave the
store with one in spite of it's short commings. The AG50DS (they
didn't have a DS2 in stock) really does sound wonderfully open &
natural. It's also as quiet as they say. OTOH, the GB Shen sounded
more, well, amplified if you know what I mean. It sounded very, very
good, though, more like a very clean PA. It was just as quiet as the
Ultra, too. While the amps sounded different, both were very "clean"
(whatever that means! ;-) & sounded great. I, personally, would have
been happy with either.

I made my decision to buy the GB Shen over the Ultra AG50DS2 based on
several things. First, It seemed to me like I needed to boost the gain
higher on the Ultra to get a volume that was equal to the Shen. Even
though the signal is very clean on the Ultra when it's cranked up a
bit, it seemed to me that I would need to add the 50W extension or
move up to the AG100DS2 to get similar volume levels to the 85W Shen.
Either of these solutions would have caused the Ultra's cost to rise
considerably over the GB's, even including adding the EXT12 extension
cab for a quasi apples-to-apples comparison to the AG50DS2 + AG50E.
Secondly, my goal is really to minimize my gear without sacrificing
the sound quality. I felt that if the Ultra really blew the GB away in
my estimation, I was willing to make it work. I considered using the
PAMM (or other mixer for that matter) & going with the AG50DS, AG50R
or the standard AG50 instead of the AG50DS2, & adding the other
components required for my specs if I had to. For MY purposes
though, the Ultra just didn't sound any better, a little different,
yes, better, no. (Of course, YMMV :-) For MY use with guitar ***&
vocals***, I believe a case could be made that the GB Shen actually
sounds better! If I get a chance to hook up with Jeff Sherman
sometime, I'll be able to do some A-Bing between his Ultra setup & my
GB. I'm sure a post will follow that meeting! If I was looking to
amplify an acoustic guitar only, though, the Ultra series of amps is
likely the way I would go. The added flexibility of the full-featured
Shen, without sacrificing sound quality IMO, tipped the scales for
me, with the lower cost just adding in it's favor.

Well, that's my story & I'm sticking to it! I'm very pleased with my
GB Shen & can hardly wait 'till I have my system where I want it.
Actually, I'm kinda tired of messing around with the gear & just want
to make some music when I have the time! Go figure! ;-)

Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question [15]
From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: 21 Jul 2003 19:37:41 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Okay, folks, I cannot get this thought out of my head, though I have asked a
similar question befoe in different guise.

If someone were to play through two 30 watt Ultrasound amps, would he or she
have more or less the same volume as the same person with the same guitar
playing through one 60 watt Ultrasound?

I'm trying to keep it simple.

Best wishes,

Dr. Jim Lowther


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:56:08 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

JimLowther wrote:
> Okay, folks, I cannot get this thought out of my head, though I have asked a
> similar question befoe in different guise.
>
> If someone were to play through two 30 watt Ultrasound amps, would he or she
> have more or less the same volume as the same person with the same guitar
> playing through one 60 watt Ultrasound?
>
> I'm trying to keep it simple.
>
No. The ear is sensitive to sound pressure in a fairly directional
manner. A single 60w source will
sound 'louder' than a 30 W stereo. Only if you placed the amps right
next to each other and stood at a distance would if sound more or less
similar.

that's why vocal PA systems need to be 300W + 300W to match a bassist
with a 200W solo amp (or a lead guitarist driving a 100W hard!).

I guess in a highly active, reverberating cavernous room a number of
small amps would begin to sound like one more powerful source but even
more muddled.

David


From: paul asbell <paul.asbell@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:38:15 GMT

Mike brown wrote:

>>watts = volts x amps this never varies
>>30 watts is 30 watts(at = voltages, which we must assume is the case here as
>>we are speaking of indetical amplifiers )
>> what your puttting forth is like saying a kg of feathers is less than a
>>kg of lead
>>
>>
>
>I know that what you say is true, but some 30 watt amps are certainly able
>to produce more percieved volume than others.
>Michael James Richard B
>
>
In the world of TUBE GUITAR AMPS, it's certainly not true that 30W=30W.
The ratings are done before some nominal "standard" of acceptable
distortion ensues... but that standard is actually FAR FROM STANDARDIZED
from maker to maker.

Matchless, for example, makes amps w/ ENORMOUSLY heavy transformers and
other "overbuilt" components, but the rating of the Class A tube output
section is nominally around 30W. Your ears will bleed if the amp is turn
up, but 30W is the rating.

--
Best regards

Paul

Paul Asbell
<pasbell@paulasbell...>
www.paulasbell.com


From: paul asbell <paul.asbell@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:35:05 GMT

>>In the world of TUBE GUITAR AMPS, it's certainly not true that 30W=30W.
>>The ratings are done before some nominal "standard" of acceptable
>>distortion ensues... but that standard is actually FAR FROM STANDARDIZED
>>from maker to maker.
>>
>>
>>
>Paul I covered this in explaining why two diffrent amps of similar wattages
>could sound much diffren, but it is NOT the # of watts that accounts for the
>volume diffrence
>30 watts is 30 watts is 30 watts at equal voltage nothing more and
>nothing less
>it is other design parameters that make one amp louder than another
>a 30 watt tube amp has no more potential than a 30 watt solid state amp
>which has no more potential than a gerbil 30 watt amp
>it is the application of the 30 watts through more effecient speakers,
>better cabinety designs, a sweeter distortion et al that accounts for the
>volume diffrence
>
>
>
I'm not gonna belabor this point, because the original point WAS, as you
point out, about real-world loudness w/ real-world solid-state amps.
Understood... HOWEVER...

We're not generally measuring actual current draw/RMS voltage/output
impedance/etc, when we talk about a 30W amp... we're using a wattage
rating determined by a manufacturor and posted on the product. Here, my
experience w/ GUITAR gear, (NOT PA GEAR!!!) is that the wattage rating
POSTED by the manufacturer is VERY, how you say... "counter-intuitive"
as to how loud in REAL-WORLD terms it will be.

I'm done...

--
Best regards

Paul


From: Bob Alman <gus@sonic...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:57:12 GMT

George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:

> watts = volts x amps this never varies
> 30 watts is 30 watts(at = voltages, which we must assume is the case here as
> we are speaking of indetical amplifiers )
> what your puttting forth is like saying a kg of feathers is less than a
> kg of lead

I agree that as far as the output power of the
amps, 2 amps of 30W will put out as much power as
1 60W amp. I don't agree that the power density
at the ear will be necessarily the same, however.
Unless the phase of the the 2 incoming wave fronts
are exactly in phase, the power delivered to the
eardrum will be less than the power available from
the sum of the two amps. This condition would be
almost impossible to create. By superposition,
one can show that if the two waves are in phase,
the powers will add constructively, and when out
of phase, completely negate one another. This is
a fundamental principle used in noise-canceling
headphones. I would expect a single amp with
twice the sound power to deliver more power to the
eardrum than two amps of half power. It's the
amplitude of the displacement of the eardrum that
matters.

The feathers and lead analogy may be somewhat valid
if you wished to hit something with a hammer made
of the two materials. The structure of the lead
will deliver the power instantaneously, whereas
the feathers would deliver the power over a much
longer interval. The available power is
identical, but the peak power delivered will be
far greater with the lead hammer.
--
Bob Alman


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:02:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Bob Alman" <<gus@sonic...>> wrote in message
news:chcTa.4241$<dk4.197588@typhoon...>...
> George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> > watts = volts x amps this never varies
> > 30 watts is 30 watts(at = voltages, which we must assume is the case
here as
> > we are speaking of indetical amplifiers )
> > what your puttting forth is like saying a kg of feathers is less
than a
> > kg of lead
>
> I agree that as far as the output power of the
> amps, 2 amps of 30W will put out as much power as
> 1 60W amp. I don't agree that the power density
> at the ear will be necessarily the same, however.
> Unless the phase of the the 2 incoming wave fronts
> are exactly in phase, the power delivered to the
> eardrum will be less than the power available from
> the sum of the two amps

I covered all this in a previous post on this subject
where I stated that there is mathamaticaly correct and real world observable
correct
both are right
but unless you can find fault with Ohms law I suggest it applies no matter
what the situation presented is
George


From: Bob Alman <gus@sonic...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:34:36 GMT

George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:

> but unless you can find fault with Ohms law I suggest it applies no matter
> what the situation presented is
> George

I don't have a problem with Ohm's law, but in this
case, it's irrelevant. Ohm's law is far more
complicated than simply multiplying volts times
amps, but let's agree that the actual sound
power from each amp is exactly the same for the two
30 watt amps, and exactly double for the 60 watt
amp. Assume all of the amps have the exact
radiation pattern, etc. On this we agree.

The rest of the problem is concerning sound wave
propagation, and nothing more. The simplest case
is to assume point sources radiating uniform,
spherical waves, and they are coincident. They
will be indistinguishable from a similar source at
twice the power. The power density will be
identical everywhere for the two cases.

But if the sources are separated, there is a
pattern of maxima and minima, so there will
not be a similar power density everywhere. You
know this is true, and is totally unrelated to
Ohm's law. It is the same problem engineers face
when designing co-phase antennas. Computing
Ohm's law for that case is a horrendous nightmare;
I know, because I have done it.

If you now have speakers, we can throw uniform power
emission out the window, and now have to deal with
radiation patterns. In-phase reception of the two
sources will be very difficult to achieve, and will
be impossible everywhere. It's a freshman physics
problem dealing with wave theory, not electric
theory. You can wave Ohm's law around, but it
plays no role in the transmission and reception of
the sound energy.
--
Bob Alman


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:44:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Bob Alman" <<gus@sonic...>> wrote in message
news:0tfTa.4334$<dk4.200009@typhoon...>...
> George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> > but unless you can find fault with Ohms law I suggest it applies no
matter
> > what the situation presented is
> > George
>
> I don't have a problem with Ohm's law, but in this
> case, it's irrelevant. Ohm's law is far more
> complicated than simply multiplying volts times
> amps, but let's agree that the actual sound
> power from each amp is exactly the same for the two
> 30 watt amps, and exactly double for the 60 watt
> amp. Assume all of the amps have the exact
> radiation pattern, etc. On this we agree.
>
> The rest of the problem is concerning sound wave
> propagation, and nothing more. The simplest case
> is to assume point sources radiating uniform,
> spherical waves, and they are coincident. They
> will be indistinguishable from a similar source at
> twice the power. The power density will be
> identical everywhere for the two cases.
>
> But if the sources are separated, there is a
> pattern of maxima and minima, so there will
> not be a similar power density everywhere. You
> know this is true, and is totally unrelated to
> Ohm's law. It is the same problem engineers face
> when designing co-phase antennas. Computing
> Ohm's law for that case is a horrendous nightmare;
> I know, because I have done it.
>
> If you now have speakers, we can throw uniform power
> emission out the window, and now have to deal with
> radiation patterns. In-phase reception of the two
> sources will be very difficult to achieve, and will
> be impossible everywhere. It's a freshman physics
> problem dealing with wave theory, not electric
> theory. You can wave Ohm's law around, but it
> plays no role in the transmission and reception of
> the sound energy.
> --
> Bob Alman

Bob no one is argueing about this
it is basic to sound that when two or more radiators are positioned next to
each other there will be areas of interference and areas of reinforcment
affecting not just the volume but also the tonal charateristics of the two
Vs one discussion
for the sake of this discussion we have to disregard these factors or it
will dissolve into a poiintless anal debate about comb filtering and
dispersion patterns and such other factors that can not be controlled or
(easily ) accounted for with math
that is why I stated that the Math makes them equal but the real world
listen will not
Peace
george


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:28:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"JimLowther" <<jimlowther@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030721153741.06855.00000325@mb-m06...>...
> Okay, folks, I cannot get this thought out of my head, though I have asked
a
> similar question befoe in different guise.
>
> If someone were to play through two 30 watt Ultrasound amps, would he or
she
> have more or less the same volume as the same person with the same guitar
> playing through one 60 watt Ultrasound?
>
> I'm trying to keep it simple.

there are so many varialbes such as cone area, cone mass, coupleing of
drivers, pahse cancellationb between the two smaller speakers, non linear
outputs of seperate amps, efficencies of speakers, the radiating space

but if you disallow for ALL variables according to the math as I know it
two 30 watt units would put out the same SPldB as one 60 watt unit

one 30 watt unit would have a negitive 3dB output in relation to the single
60 watt unit driven with equal power
when two speakers couple perfectly with a equal input you get 3dB more
output
so to have two speakers in a Perfect world each getting 30 watts it would
in fact equal a single speaker recieving 60 watts

but the real world answer is NO
George


From: Bob Alman <gus@sonic...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:09:30 GMT

George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:

> Bob no one is argueing about this
> it is basic to sound that when two or more radiators are positioned next to
> each other there will be areas of interference and areas of reinforcment
> affecting not just the volume but also the tonal charateristics of the two
> Vs one discussion
> for the sake of this discussion we have to disregard these factors or it
> will dissolve into a poiintless anal debate about comb filtering and
> dispersion patterns and such other factors that can not be controlled or
> (easily ) accounted for with math

You can't disregard the factors that actually make
the difference. If you are going to use math, you
have to apply it at the place where it has an
effect: at the listener's ear. It's ugly math,
but a first approximation will quickly show the
result David has mentioned.

> that is why I stated that the Math makes them equal but the real world
> listen will not

That's because the math has to be applied
properly. Do the math for the power at the ear
drum, and it will agree.
--
Bob Alman


From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:17:10 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Bob Alman <<gus@sonic...>> wrote in
news:0tfTa.4334$<dk4.200009@typhoon...>:

<snip>
> The rest of the problem is concerning sound wave
> propagation, and nothing more. The simplest case
> is to assume point sources radiating uniform,
> spherical waves, and they are coincident. They
> will be indistinguishable from a similar source at
> twice the power. The power density will be
> identical everywhere for the two cases.
>
> But if the sources are separated, there is a
> pattern of maxima and minima, so there will
> not be a similar power density everywhere. You
> know this is true, and is totally unrelated to
> Ohm's law. It is the same problem engineers face
> when designing co-phase antennas. Computing
> Ohm's law for that case is a horrendous nightmare;
> I know, because I have done it.
>
> If you now have speakers, we can throw uniform power
> emission out the window, and now have to deal with
> radiation patterns. In-phase reception of the two
> sources will be very difficult to achieve, and will
> be impossible everywhere. It's a freshman physics
> problem dealing with wave theory, not electric
> theory. You can wave Ohm's law around, but it
> plays no role in the transmission and reception of
> the sound energy.

Bob,

I understand what you're saying, but how much of a db reduction would
this actually make in the real world? Those 30 watt amps are pretty
small, so co-locating the speakers near each other isn't a problem. And
they would both be pushing air in phase, at least at the transducer.

Yeah, you'd probably get some out of phase effects somewhere in the
sound field, with reflections and whatnot, related to the small
separation between transducers. But would it really be enough to
significantly affect the soud?

A Fender Twin guitar amp uses two 12" speakers side-by side, and that
seems to work pretty well.

Each of my Westlake nearfield recording monitor cabinets has two
identical main drivers separated by a few inches, plus a high freq
driver in the center. The monitor designers didn't seem to worried about
phase effects.

So.... is it really that big a deal? Maybe I don't understand what
you're saying, but it seems to me that if phase problems from separated
speakers were all that significant in the real world, then we would only
see stacked, concentric-type speaker designs.

--
Mike Barrs


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:19:44 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Guys, hearing is perceptual. It involves space and mapping distance
stereophonically (actually more than that - as enhancer makers know).

change the question:

Does a choir all singing in unison, quietly, sound as loud as an opera
singer at full volume? Logic says that a choir can never sound quiet. If
there's 50 of 'em then 50 whispers must equal a shout. But they don't.

One loud source of sound will always sound louder to the ear than two,
or any number, of distributed quieter sources using the same total
energy. That, combined with our ability to tune in on harmonics and
focus attention, is why we can occasionally manage to hear what the wife
is saying when the television is switched on.

It does not explain the other 90 per cent of times we don't....

David


From: Bob Alman <gus@sonic...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:36:40 GMT

foldedpath <<mbarrs@nospam...>> wrote:

> Bob,

> I understand what you're saying, but how much of a db reduction would
> this actually make in the real world? Those 30 watt amps are pretty
> small, so co-locating the speakers near each other isn't a problem. And
> they would both be pushing air in phase, at least at the transducer.

I doubt it would take much to be discernible, in
an A/B test. By itself, who would know?

> Yeah, you'd probably get some out of phase effects somewhere in the
> sound field, with reflections and whatnot, related to the small
> separation between transducers. But would it really be enough to
> significantly affect the soud?

> A Fender Twin guitar amp uses two 12" speakers side-by side, and that
> seems to work pretty well.

True. The closer they are, and the bigger they
are, the less the effect.

   A---------------------B
    \         Z         /
     \                 /
      \               /
       \             /
      X \           / Y
         \         /
          \       /
           \     /
            \   /
             \ /
              C 
If speaker A and B are identical, they will be in
phase and add if X=Y, assuming the same
wavelength.
The wavelength = speed of sound/frequency

If speed of sound=1100 ft per second
frequency = 1100 Hz
wavelength = 1 foot.

For the distance of X-Y, there will be a null
every foot where the remainder is 1/2 foot. In
other words, where the distance equals an odd
multiple of wavelength/2. This distance changes
with frequency, and is what gives you the
"spatial" effect of having two or more speakers.
Even with monaural, 2 or more speakers sounds
fuller. With 2 speakers set a foot apart, the
nodes would be gentle, and very broad. little
cancellation would be noticed. But there would be
some, and some people may be able to discern a
difference. As Z increases, it will be easier to
notice the nodes, as they get narrower, and more
intense.

> Each of my Westlake nearfield recording monitor cabinets has two
> identical main drivers separated by a few inches, plus a high freq
> driver in the center. The monitor designers didn't seem to worried about
> phase effects.

In the proximity of the speakers, there should be
a "near field" region where the waves are
generated, in a volume of air that changes in
pressure, and if close enough, will join together.
The waves will form in a region some distance from
the cone. I bet the designers were quite
concerned with the effects, and knew what they can
get away with.

> So.... is it really that big a deal? Maybe I don't understand what
> you're saying, but it seems to me that if phase problems from separated
> speakers were all that significant in the real world, then we would only
> see stacked, concentric-type speaker designs.

I doubt it is a big deal at all. I just don't
want to dismiss David's perception by applying an
over-simplified explanation. Sometimes, everything
important lies in the little details. Oh, I may
be full of shit.
--
Bob Alman


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:42:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

Full discussion of phase is available in last month "Live Sound"
George


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Watts+Watts=Wats Question
Date: 25 Jul 2003 12:07:18 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Ralph,

I completely agree that the two amps produce a more pleasent sound. Time and
again when I demo this all I receive is agreement. No one has ever disagreed
with me on this.

The Doc

Roland Jazz Chorus HISS?? [2]
From: Hey You <pickproblem@yahoo...>
Subject: Roland Jazz Chorus HISS??
Date: 25 Jul 2003 07:26:35 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Hi all. After recently solving my hiss problems through my Acousticube
IIa by switching from B-Band to Fishman pickups, i now have a new
problem..:
I just purchased a Roland Jazz Chorus 120 after trying out a JC 60
that i really liked the sound of. Ironically, previously my B-Band was
silent through my guitar tech's Roland Jazz Chorus 60 but not through
my 'Cube. So thrilled was i with the quietness and power of the Jazz
Chorus that i thought i'd go out and get one, but instead of a 60, a
120.
Anyways, i got it delivered yesterday and it looked great, but when i
turned it on, and turned up the volume, (without anything plugged into
it, btw) man, the HISS!! Is this normal? I mean that is some hiss and
i gotta say i'm a little distressed! The JC 60 i tried out was
completely SILENT, so imagine my surprise when i turned this sucker
on. Could there be something wrong with it? Apart from the hiss, the
sound is great, powerful as hell and LOUD. One other thing i am
finding though, is that i am getting really bad feedback whenever i
turn up the bass/mid/treble settings.
I am playing a Martin OM-28v acoustic armed with a Fishman Acoustic
Matrix Natural 1 pickup. Any ideas?
I appreciate any replies posted to the newsgroup (my e-mail is
currently bust)
Maybe one day my amplification problems will come to an end...
Thank you.


From: Rich McCarthy <rmccarthy001@rogers...>
Subject: Re: Roland Jazz Chorus HISS??
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:32:17 GMT

On 25 Jul 2003 07:26:35 -0700, <pickproblem@yahoo...> (Hey You)
wrote:

>Hi all. After recently solving my hiss problems through my Acousticube
>IIa by switching from B-Band to Fishman pickups, i now have a new
>problem..:
>I just purchased a Roland Jazz Chorus 120 after trying out a JC 60
>that i really liked the sound of. Ironically, previously my B-Band was
>silent through my guitar tech's Roland Jazz Chorus 60 but not through
>my 'Cube. So thrilled was i with the quietness and power of the Jazz
>Chorus that i thought i'd go out and get one, but instead of a 60, a
>120.
>Anyways, i got it delivered yesterday and it looked great, but when i
>turned it on, and turned up the volume, (without anything plugged into
>it, btw) man, the HISS!! Is this normal? I mean that is some hiss and
>i gotta say i'm a little distressed! The JC 60 i tried out was
>completely SILENT, so imagine my surprise when i turned this sucker
>on. Could there be something wrong with it? Apart from the hiss, the
>sound is great, powerful as hell and LOUD. One other thing i am
>finding though, is that i am getting really bad feedback whenever i
>turn up the bass/mid/treble settings.
>I am playing a Martin OM-28v acoustic armed with a Fishman Acoustic
>Matrix Natural 1 pickup. Any ideas?
>I appreciate any replies posted to the newsgroup (my e-mail is
>currently bust)
>Maybe one day my amplification problems will come to an end...
>Thank you.

Send it back. Get the JC 60.
Plenty of power and volume there for most situations.
If you ever need more, mic the amp tthru the main sound system.

Rich McCarthy

Ultrasound amp new look [3]
From: Walter Lane <walterlane@netzero...>
Subject: Ultrasound amp new look
Date: 11 Aug 2003 20:57:15 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Check out the new look of Ultrasound. An inprovement IMHO:

http://www.samusic.com/amplification/ultrasound_ag50ds2.shtml


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amp new look
Date: 12 Aug 2003 10:14:03 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Morning Everyone,

Just enjoying my first cup of java and saw this post. We did indeed change the
look to attract more attention to the amp. The new look units started shipping
yesterday. The cosmetics were orginally designed to be unobstrutive in the
home. Problem was they were that way in the store too! A little birdie
whispered in my ear that change was needed so that's what I did.

The PRO 100 just made sense. With all the features of the PRO 200 it is a
better amp. The 100DS2 is being discontinued and I have 10 of the new look
units left. What worked out very well for us is the inventory transition. We
have no old stock left.

If you want to see what we'rd doing to the website then check this out for a
sense of what's going to be. I hope to have it up and running by the end of
the week.
www.ultrasoundamps.com/index03.html It does have music so be patient.

The Doc


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amp new look
Date: 12 Aug 2003 12:42:19 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Something that I should have brought up before but did not. There are no
internal changes to the amp. The only change is cosmetic.

Dan

Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency [17]
From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:29:46 GMT

Now that I've MASTERED all the subtle nuances of impedance, I'm
jumping down to the bottom of the old signal chain and I have a
question about speaker efficiency. I'd sure appreciate any advice any
of you electronic gurus could give me here.

I have a 30w Ultrasound and as nice as it sounds for practicing at
home its not cutting it as a monitor in these bars I've been playing.
Shoulda got another 50w but I really like the small footprint of this
30w and I'd like to make it work somehow.

The little 30w Crate I used to have didn't sound nearly as nice but it
was much louder. Tons louder. Greg at U/S attributes this to the
higher effiiciency, polypropelene-coned, driver that Crate uses. (U/S
speakers have a paper cone.)

Sound quality's not as big an issue as volume at this point --- the
audience is hearing the U/S 50s I have and I can live with whatever I
have to hear as long as its not totally horrible.

So anybody got a suggestion on a brand name to look for in an 8"
coaxial? Parts Express sells an Eminence set-up (you have to buy the
tweeter and crossover separately) that would be pricey (@ $130). It
might even be the speaker that U/S is using in their new 100w model
but I dunno about that.

I don't mind spending the dough but I don't know much about this stuff
and I don't want to damage the amp. If a speaker's given way less
power than its rating, will it not work at all or just not work at its
optimum? Any other ways to hot rod this amp?

Any advice much appreciated.

Sherm


From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:14:12 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

<jshermannospam@lorainccc...> (Sherm) wrote in news:3f4cc961.3619975
@news.cis.dfn.de:

> Now that I've MASTERED all the subtle nuances of impedance, I'm
> jumping down to the bottom of the old signal chain and I have a
> question about speaker efficiency. I'd sure appreciate any advice any
> of you electronic gurus could give me here.
>
> I have a 30w Ultrasound and as nice as it sounds for practicing at
> home its not cutting it as a monitor in these bars I've been playing.
> Shoulda got another 50w but I really like the small footprint of this
> 30w and I'd like to make it work somehow.
>
> The little 30w Crate I used to have didn't sound nearly as nice but it
> was much louder. Tons louder. Greg at U/S attributes this to the
> higher effiiciency, polypropelene-coned, driver that Crate uses. (U/S
> speakers have a paper cone.)

That makes sense. It isn't always the case, but it's usually the case
that better sound quality in a speaker means a lower efficiency design,
with more watts needed to drive it.

> Sound quality's not as big an issue as volume at this point --- the
> audience is hearing the U/S 50s I have and I can live with whatever I
> have to hear as long as its not totally horrible.
>
> So anybody got a suggestion on a brand name to look for in an 8"
> coaxial? Parts Express sells an Eminence set-up (you have to buy the
> tweeter and crossover separately) that would be pricey (@ $130). It
> might even be the speaker that U/S is using in their new 100w model
> but I dunno about that.

Be careful with this... it's easy to damage an amp by driving a speaker
it's not designed for. Have you asked Greg/US about a replacement
speaker that would work? I wouldn't do this myself without an OK from
the amp manufacturer. But maybe someone out there has already tried
boosting the output on a 30w US, and will post a speaker setup that
works.

> I don't mind spending the dough but I don't know much about this stuff
> and I don't want to damage the amp. If a speaker's given way less
> power than its rating, will it not work at all or just not work at its
> optimum? Any other ways to hot rod this amp?

Tube amps can be hotrodded by monkeying with different tubes and
replacement output transformers, but your options are more limited with
a SS design like this.

One band-aid you might try before getting a bigger amp, is adding some
compression to the monitor mix. It might help you hear things a little
better in the monitor, even though it's running at the same output
volume. You know... like TV commercials. :-)

Have you considered an earbud monitor system? Not everyone likes those,
and the good ones are pricey, but it's a lot more portable than
schlepping a third amp on the gig for use as a monitor. If I was playing
out and needed a monitor, I would at least try one of these systems to
see if I could live with it.

Remember, if you get a higher-volume monitor system, you might be buying
into more problems than you're having now with guitar or vocal mic
feedback. But maybe you've already considered that, and have ways to
deal with it.

--
Mike Barrs


From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:24:27 GMT

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:14:12 -0000, foldedpath
<<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote:

>Be careful with this... it's easy to damage an amp by driving a speaker
>it's not designed for. Have you asked Greg/US about a replacement
>speaker that would work?

Yeah. It was Greg who suggested trying a Crate replacement speaker.
Wonder who makes what they use.

> Remember, if you get a higher-volume monitor system, you might be buying
>into more problems than you're having now with guitar or vocal mic
>feedback. But maybe you've already considered that, and have ways to
>deal with it.

Well, only because the Crate I used to use was louder and I played a
dozen or so gigs with it. I really only need a little bit more
volume.

Maybe the earbud thing would be the way to go but not if its
expensive. I've been tempted to just run an ear bud from the mixer
but there'd be no protection, right? I remember George Gleason
warning somebody about in-ear systems ("if you value you're hearing .
. . "). I'd need a . . . . a limiter?

Sherm


From: Mark <msevans@no-spam-tds...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:37:35 GMT
Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net

stroll over to http://www.weberbvst.com
troll around Ted Weber's place, check out forums, send Ted an e-mail.Pick
his brain.

weber's speakers are awesome.

"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3f4cc961.3619975@news...>...
> Now that I've MASTERED all the subtle nuances of impedance, I'm
> jumping down to the bottom of the old signal chain and I have a
> question about speaker efficiency. I'd sure appreciate any advice any
> of you electronic gurus could give me here.
>
> I have a 30w Ultrasound and as nice as it sounds for practicing at
> home its not cutting it as a monitor in these bars I've been playing.
> Shoulda got another 50w but I really like the small footprint of this
> 30w and I'd like to make it work somehow.
>
> The little 30w Crate I used to have didn't sound nearly as nice but it
> was much louder. Tons louder. Greg at U/S attributes this to the
> higher effiiciency, polypropelene-coned, driver that Crate uses. (U/S
> speakers have a paper cone.)
>
> Sound quality's not as big an issue as volume at this point --- the
> audience is hearing the U/S 50s I have and I can live with whatever I
> have to hear as long as its not totally horrible.
>
> So anybody got a suggestion on a brand name to look for in an 8"
> coaxial? Parts Express sells an Eminence set-up (you have to buy the
> tweeter and crossover separately) that would be pricey (@ $130). It
> might even be the speaker that U/S is using in their new 100w model
> but I dunno about that.
>
> I don't mind spending the dough but I don't know much about this stuff
> and I don't want to damage the amp. If a speaker's given way less
> power than its rating, will it not work at all or just not work at its
> optimum? Any other ways to hot rod this amp?
>
> Any advice much appreciated.
>
> Sherm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:06:35 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

<jshermannospam@lorainccc...> (Sherm) wrote in
news:<3f4cd910.7635864@news...>:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:14:12 -0000, foldedpath
> <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote:
>
>
>>Be careful with this... it's easy to damage an amp by driving a
>>speaker it's not designed for. Have you asked Greg/US about a
>>replacement speaker that would work?
>
> Yeah. It was Greg who suggested trying a Crate replacement speaker.
> Wonder who makes what they use.
>
>> Remember, if you get a higher-volume monitor system, you might be
>> buying
>>into more problems than you're having now with guitar or vocal mic
>>feedback. But maybe you've already considered that, and have ways to
>>deal with it.
>
> Well, only because the Crate I used to use was louder and I played a
> dozen or so gigs with it. I really only need a little bit more
> volume.

Try compression, if you have a spare compressor you can throw on the
monitor buss. This might be the ticket if you just need a slight boost.
You can't use too much though, or you'll start "playing to the
compression effect" with your playing dynamics, and the audience won't
be hearing what you want them to hear. A little compression to boost the
effective gain in the monitor shouldn't cause this problem though.

> Maybe the earbud thing would be the way to go but not if its
> expensive.

They're getting less expensive, but I haven't been tracking the current
models, or what the best bang-for-the-buck would be.

One problem with earbuds is that you have to choose between one or two,
and if you go with two for the "full immersion" effect with your music,
then you're isolated from the audience sounds. Tuck and Patti
(fingerstyle jazz guitar and vocal artists) solve that with an extra mic
on the floor, pointing out towards the audience. So earbuds can both
simplify, AND complicate your setup... depending on how you use 'em.

Of course there might be venues where being isolated from audience
sounds would be a good idea. ;-)

> I've been tempted to just run an ear bud from the mixer
> but there'd be no protection, right? I remember George Gleason
> warning somebody about in-ear systems ("if you value you're hearing .
> . . "). I'd need a . . . . a limiter?

Yeah, a fast-clamping limiter to avoid hearing damage, in the event of
uncontrolled feedback or someone knocking over a mic stand. Some of
these systems may have it built-in, but I'm not sure about that. Maybe
some earbud monitor users will jump in here with comments.

--
Mike Barrs


From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:45:47 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

<jshermannospam@lorainccc...> (Sherm) wrote in
news:<3f4ce514.10712162@news...>:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:06:35 -0000, foldedpath
> <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote:
>
>>Try compression, if you have a spare compressor you can throw on the
>>monitor buss. This might be the ticket if you just need a slight
>>boost. You can't use too much though, or you'll start "playing to the
>>compression effect" with your playing dynamics, and the audience won't
>>be hearing what you want them to hear. A little compression to boost
>>the effective gain in the monitor shouldn't cause this problem though.
>
> I've got a really old dynacomp stomper but I think you're talking
> something a bit more sophisticated than that, aren't you? Hey, I'll
> give it a shot anyway just to see if its worth exploring a better one.

Yeah, the stomp box compressors are designed for electric guitar, so
they're usually not "hi fi." But maybe good enough for a monitor mix, or
at least a preview of the effect with a good one.

I did some more research on the earbud thing. My S.O. recently
appropriated the nice AKG headphones I normally use for practice with my
looper (she likes how comfortable they are for listening to TV late at
night). So I thought I'd look into earbuds as a possible "kill two birds
with one stone" replacement -- good for practice, good for possible
playing out scenarios.

I don't know all the brands out there, but I checked to see what Shure
offers. They make a system that would break out like this:

E1 single driver earphones $139
P2R bodypack receiver (wired) $289

    	    	    	    	Total:    	$428
That's street price, from 8thstreet.com. So it ain't cheap. I think I'll
go for standard headphones for looper practice, but I'd consider this if
I was playing out much.

BTW, the bodypack includes a limiter, so you're covered there. According
to the Shure FAQ, it won't allow the output to go above 114 dB SPL.
That's loud, but not ear damaging for brief exposure.

There may be cheaper systems than this Shure setup, this is just the
first one I checked out. Shure also sells more expensive earphones to go
with this setup, with extended bass and highs. The E1's are just the
basic buds. You can also add a transmitter/receiver option to that
bodypack, and convert it to a wireless system (for more bucks, of
course).

--
Mike Barrs


From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:03:50 -0400
Organization: Library of Congress

Mark wrote:
> stroll over to http://www.weberbvst.com
> troll around Ted Weber's place, check out forums, send Ted an e-mail.Pick
> his brain.
>
> weber's speakers are awesome.

I second that recommendation, Jeff. I've got a couple of Weber
speakers--a 12" Chicago in my Fender Blues Deluxe and 12" California in
a homemade extension cab. Great products. I've also got an 8" Kendrick
speaker in my '66 Champ. The Kendrick's kinda pricey for an 8"

Weber speakers are voiced for guitar tube amps, though and might not
give the full-frequency response you'd want for acoustic, but it's just
a monitor, right?

Dick

>
>
> "Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
> news:<3f4cc961.3619975@news...>...
>
>>Now that I've MASTERED all the subtle nuances of impedance, I'm
>>jumping down to the bottom of the old signal chain and I have a
>>question about speaker efficiency. I'd sure appreciate any advice any
>>of you electronic gurus could give me here.
>>
>>I have a 30w Ultrasound and as nice as it sounds for practicing at
>>home its not cutting it as a monitor in these bars I've been playing.
>>Shoulda got another 50w but I really like the small footprint of this
>>30w and I'd like to make it work somehow.
>>
>>The little 30w Crate I used to have didn't sound nearly as nice but it
>>was much louder. Tons louder. Greg at U/S attributes this to the
>>higher effiiciency, polypropelene-coned, driver that Crate uses. (U/S
>>speakers have a paper cone.)
>>
>>Sound quality's not as big an issue as volume at this point --- the
>>audience is hearing the U/S 50s I have and I can live with whatever I
>>have to hear as long as its not totally horrible.
>>
>>So anybody got a suggestion on a brand name to look for in an 8"
>>coaxial? Parts Express sells an Eminence set-up (you have to buy the
>>tweeter and crossover separately) that would be pricey (@ $130). It
>>might even be the speaker that U/S is using in their new 100w model
>>but I dunno about that.
>>
>>I don't mind spending the dough but I don't know much about this stuff
>>and I don't want to damage the amp. If a speaker's given way less
>>power than its rating, will it not work at all or just not work at its
>>optimum? Any other ways to hot rod this amp?
>>
>>Any advice much appreciated.
>>
>>Sherm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


From: Mark <msevans@no-spam-tds...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:52:35 GMT
Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net

some folks made some good points about the variations in speaker
characteristics (electric/tube/amp/magnetic pickup/et.)

I've e-mailed Ted Weber direct before, asking him question, and he is very
generous (if not short winded). with info. If you presented your quandry, he
might have a model of speaker for the application -- perhaps even something
that you didn't consider.

good luck

mevans
"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3f4ce7f1.11444835@news...>...
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:37:35 GMT, "Mark" <<msevans@no-spam-tds...>>
> wrote:
>
> >stroll over to http://www.weberbvst.com
> >troll around Ted Weber's place, check out forums, send Ted an e-mail.Pick
> >his brain.
> >
> >weber's speakers are awesome.
>
> Thanks, Mark. I'll check it out.
>
> Sherm
>


From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:57:01 GMT

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:52:35 GMT, "Mark" <<msevans@no-spam-tds...>>
wrote:

>some folks made some good points about the variations in speaker
>characteristics (electric/tube/amp/magnetic pickup/et.)
>
>I've e-mailed Ted Weber direct before, asking him question, and he is very
>generous (if not short winded). with info. If you presented your quandry, he
>might have a model of speaker for the application -- perhaps even something
>that you didn't consider.
>
>good luck

I emailed him and then spent some time on the order page where you can
get a lot of info quickly. There's an 8" there that looks
interesting. I also noticed that they'll custom build with different
combinations of parts so I'd expect that they could easily come up
with something. Didn't see anything coaxial, though, but maybe with
the right full range speaker it wouldn't be necessary.

Thanks again, Mark. If I ever start doing electric work again I'm
gonna talk to them about some 12"s for my old LabSeries.

Sherm


From: David Enke <putw@webcoast2coast...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:43:20 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

Hi Jeff,
congratulations on the impedance, but don't get overly-confident just yet
because the impedance will sneak up and attack you from a different angle at
a latter time when you least expect it. It is a chronic condition, and the
best you can hope for is to keep it in check.

That said, send me the 30 watt Ultrasound, and get a new 50 or a pair of 50
E's. It also might help to make some sort of stand to put the little one up
and more in your face. In exchange for the amp, I'll give you a year's
supply of impedance counseling, and for all you've been through, this should
seem like a bargain.

From my evaluations, the speakers in the Ultrasounds have the most to do
with their smooth sound. Other amps are more efficient, but they can also
tend to sound a bit brash sometimes, and I attribute most of this is due to
the tweeters, the crossovers, and that the tweeters are typically not
mounted in a coaxial fashion like the Ultrasounds.

I hope this helps.

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

"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3f4cc961.3619975@news...>...
> Now that I've MASTERED all the subtle nuances of impedance, I'm
> jumping down to the bottom of the old signal chain and I have a
> question about speaker efficiency. I'd sure appreciate any advice any
> of you electronic gurus could give me here.
>
> I have a 30w Ultrasound and as nice as it sounds for practicing at
> home its not cutting it as a monitor in these bars I've been playing.
> Shoulda got another 50w but I really like the small footprint of this
> 30w and I'd like to make it work somehow.
>
> The little 30w Crate I used to have didn't sound nearly as nice but it
> was much louder. Tons louder. Greg at U/S attributes this to the
> higher effiiciency, polypropelene-coned, driver that Crate uses. (U/S
> speakers have a paper cone.)
>
> Sound quality's not as big an issue as volume at this point --- the
> audience is hearing the U/S 50s I have and I can live with whatever I
> have to hear as long as its not totally horrible.
>
> So anybody got a suggestion on a brand name to look for in an 8"
> coaxial? Parts Express sells an Eminence set-up (you have to buy the
> tweeter and crossover separately) that would be pricey (@ $130). It
> might even be the speaker that U/S is using in their new 100w model
> but I dunno about that.
>
> I don't mind spending the dough but I don't know much about this stuff
> and I don't want to damage the amp. If a speaker's given way less
> power than its rating, will it not work at all or just not work at its
> optimum? Any other ways to hot rod this amp?
>
> Any advice much appreciated.
>
> Sherm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


From: David Enke <putw@webcoast2coast...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:03:44 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3f4ce8b0.11636705@news...>...

> Yep. The stand idea occurred to me too. I've got it on the floor and
> getting it a little closer might make all the difference.
>
> Sherm

One of those shorter heavy duty microphone stands commonly used for drummers
and a threaded flange mounted into the bottom of the 30 ought to put it up
around knee to waist level pretty cleanly. Put this off to one side and tilt
it up so it points in your face. I'm not sure if this would support a 50,
but the 30's are pretty light, so I can't see why it wouldn't work.

David


From: Michael Schultz <hooloovoo25@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: 27 Aug 2003 16:54:45 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Jeff,

Along the same lines, I saw an "Enhancer" branded amp stand at Atlanta
Discount Music yesterday. A quick search didn't pull up anything but
you could drop them a line and inquire (www.atlantadiscountmusic.com).

 You'll get a bit of height, definite angle (maybe 20 degrees?) and
acoustic isolation/decoupling from the floor. In conjunction with the
compressor, you might be well on your way. I have a Guyatone ST2 that
I've toyed with a bit, using it more as a boost than as a compressor
in the technical sense (although I do bring it in a bit). Pushing a
stronger, fatter signal through the same speaker is probably going to
be more tonally satisfying - and viable as a functional monitor - than
going with a replacement.

Actually, I've also used - now that I'm thinking on this - a Voodoo
Lab Overdrive pedal with the gain set at zero as a sort of clean
boost/line driver. If you have a quality, true-bypass pedal of that
sort laying about, you might give it a shot as well. The great thing
about the VL - in this usage anyway - is the lack of an EQ; the less
stuff the signal actually meets along the way... well, you know.

Best,

Michael

<jshermannospam@lorainccc...> (Sherm) wrote in message news:<<3f4cf1b7.13947746@news...>>...
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:03:44 GMT, "David Enke"
> <<putw@webcoast2coast...>> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
> >news:<3f4ce8b0.11636705@news...>...
> >
> >> Yep. The stand idea occurred to me too. I've got it on the floor and
> >> getting it a little closer might make all the difference.
> >>
> >> Sherm
> >


From: CDT <shag_q3@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: 28 Aug 2003 07:12:48 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

<jshermannospam@lorainccc...> (Sherm) wrote in message news:<<3f4cf1b7.13947746@news...>>...
> >"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
> >news:<3f4ce8b0.11636705@news...>...
> Mount the flange at an angle to get some tilt?
> Sherm

I use a 50watt marshall as50r for the same reason you're using your
30watt US amp..

I bought a $30 amp stand...solved the problem of volume for me..

here's the one I bought over a year ago:

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/sid=030828071121066056160046191774/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/450052/


From: don hindenach <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:00:39 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:29:46 UTC, <jshermannospam@lorainccc...> (Sherm)
wrote:

> Now that I've MASTERED all the subtle nuances of impedance, I'm
> jumping down to the bottom of the old signal chain and I have a
> question about speaker efficiency. I'd sure appreciate any advice any
> of you electronic gurus could give me here.
>
> I have a 30w Ultrasound and as nice as it sounds for practicing at
> home its not cutting it as a monitor in these bars I've been playing.
> Shoulda got another 50w but I really like the small footprint of this
> 30w and I'd like to make it work somehow.
>
> The little 30w Crate I used to have didn't sound nearly as nice but it
> was much louder. Tons louder. Greg at U/S attributes this to the
> higher effiiciency, polypropelene-coned, driver that Crate uses. (U/S
> speakers have a paper cone.)
>
> Sound quality's not as big an issue as volume at this point --- the
> audience is hearing the U/S 50s I have and I can live with whatever I
> have to hear as long as its not totally horrible.
>
> So anybody got a suggestion on a brand name to look for in an 8"
> coaxial? Parts Express sells an Eminence set-up (you have to buy the
> tweeter and crossover separately) that would be pricey (@ $130). It
> might even be the speaker that U/S is using in their new 100w model
> but I dunno about that.
>
> I don't mind spending the dough but I don't know much about this stuff
> and I don't want to damage the amp. If a speaker's given way less
> power than its rating, will it not work at all or just not work at its
> optimum? Any other ways to hot rod this amp?
>
> Any advice much appreciated.

Sherm,

Barnd name will help little, as there are too many factors involved.

The best suggestion so far is finding a way to raise the US30 and
(hopefully) tilt it.

Replacing the speaker system might help, as long as it's done in a way
to make sense. Just hoping that a different cone material will be
"more efficient" is unlikely to be of any help at all. Some of the
factors that affect effiency, in random order, are: voice coil size,
voice coil length, voice-coil gap (in the magnet assembly), magnet
size, magnet type, surround compliance, spider compliance (yes, there
is a spider. it's a little known fact that a spider is necessary for
a speaker to function, and that's why so a completely sealed speaker
box will never last as long as one with some kinda opening for the
poor spider to get a bit of air and sustanence. we'll leave the issue
of compliance for Dorgan to explain), cone mass, basket mass a
rigidity, etc etc

Also, distortion and peaky response will always sound louder than
clean and smooth. So you can go for a dirty, nasty, lead-guitar
speaker, except that there aren't many of those in 8" size :-)

The good news is that we have computer programs that can help, IF your
data is good.

I firmly believe that a stage monitor system rarely needs anything
below 100Hz (you are getting any bass info you need from the mains),
so you can go for a far stiffer speaker than you may wish to enjoy if
the unit stood alone. This is good on two levels, as bass takes
energy and a stiffer speaker is often more efficient. You could also
just try taking the Ultrasound30's bass control all the way
counter-clock-wise, and the treble control no farther than 11-12
o'clock, and see how loud it gets then.

If raising the unit and dorking with the tine controls fails to get
you there, get the raw driver data from your nice ultrasound guy, and
we can plug that data into my computer program and start comparing.

--

 -don hindenach-
donh at audiosys dot com


From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: 28 Aug 2003 01:51:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

DonH sez:

<< a stage monitor system rarely needs anything
below 100Hz ...
[snips]
You could also
just try taking the Ultrasound30's bass control all the way
counter-clock-wise, and the treble control no farther than 11-12
o'clock, and see how loud it gets then. >>

and I concur! Try leaving out what you're not using and that lets your
speaker work on only what you need. Bass frequencies leech energy from audio
systems a lot, so be sure to cut away what you're not using.

stv


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:58:40 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Jeff, have you tried experimenting with the EQ on the monitor?
Sometimes, raising or lowering the highs and lows can let the
monitor be heard better. It wouldn't necessarily be good sound
and it wouldn't be what the audience is hearing, but the main
thing would be to let you hear the voice and guitar to keep it
all together, right? I would try cutting the highs and lows to
boost the midrange, but that might result in lower overall
volume. Also, sometimes that just doesn't cut through. Then I
would try boosting the highs and lows. Again, it might not be
what you want the folks to hear, but if it can keep you on track,
that's what you're looking for, isn't it?

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


From: <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Goodbye Impedance, Hello Efficiency
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:21:58 -0400

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:58:40 -0500, misifus
<<rseibert@cox-internet...>> wrote:

>Jeff, have you tried experimenting with the EQ on the monitor?
>Sometimes, raising or lowering the highs and lows can let the
>monitor be heard better. It wouldn't necessarily be good sound
>and it wouldn't be what the audience is hearing, but the main
>thing would be to let you hear the voice and guitar to keep it
>all together, right? I would try cutting the highs and lows to
>boost the midrange, but that might result in lower overall
>volume. Also, sometimes that just doesn't cut through. Then I
>would try boosting the highs and lows. Again, it might not be
>what you want the folks to hear, but if it can keep you on track,
>that's what you're looking for, isn't it?
>
> -Ralph

Yeah, the loop playback's critical although if its all just too damn
ugly sounding then its distracting, like an annoyance, ya know?

That's why I dumped the Crate even though it wasn't all that bad. The
audience that was ignoring me half the time got to hear the
Ultrasounds but did * I * get to hear the Ultrasounds, Ralph? Oh
Nooooooooooooooo . . . So anyway, that's why I got the 30w. Plus,
its a cute little thing. And it'd look cool sittng there on stand of
some kind. And I could reach it easily.

Sherm

AER Compact 60 gig bag [4]
From: yvan fortin <yvanfortin@videotron...>
Subject: AER Compact 60 gig bag
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 08:53:28 -0700

I would like to have a look at the gig bag for the AER Compact 60 before
buying one.
Does someone know where I can look at it on the net ?
If you've seen one or have one, is it worth buying it ?

Thanks

Yvan


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: AER Compact 60 gig bag
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:32:02 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

yvan fortin wrote:
> I would like to have a look at the gig bag for the AER Compact 60 before
> buying one.
> Does someone know where I can look at it on the net ?
> If you've seen one or have one, is it worth buying it ?
>
Dunno, but my AER Alpha 40 came with one. All for 365 pounds GB, new. As
far as I can tell the Alpha does what I need, and the gig bag will hold
the mains cable (a long one, not the silly short one supplied); a mic
cable; an SE-1 mic and holder; a guitar cable. It will not hold a mic
stand :-)

David


From: Charlie Ayers <bigskychuck@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: AER Compact 60 gig bag
Date: 2 Sep 2003 14:11:04 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

I own a 60, and a gig bag. I can't contrast it with the bag that
usually comes with the amp, as mine, mistakenly, came without one. I
ordered the gig bag from my dealer. It's padded, fairly heavy duty,
and has a good shoulder strap and 3 zippered pockets. It allows me to
carry the amp over one shoulder, which is amazing.

A guy I play with has a 60, and paid the extra for the gig bag after
seeing mine; he hasn't been disappointed.

Charlie


From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: AER Compact 60 gig bag
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:12:19 -0400

I paid roughly $50 for the gig bag when I bought my AER Compact 60. Great
accessory. The three pockets are ample enough for two mics, mic cords, a
guitar cord, an extension cord and my delay stomp box with the AC adapter.

I slip my guitar gig bag on my back, slide the Compact 60 over my shoulder,
grab my mic stand with one hand and still have one hand free to open the
coffeehouse door.

All the best,

Steve

"Charlie Ayers" <<bigskychuck@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<b341776a.0309021311.4c35c8d2@posting...>...
> I own a 60, and a gig bag. I can't contrast it with the bag that
> usually comes with the amp, as mine, mistakenly, came without one. I
> ordered the gig bag from my dealer. It's padded, fairly heavy duty,
> and has a good shoulder strap and 3 zippered pockets. It allows me to
> carry the amp over one shoulder, which is amazing.
>
> A guy I play with has a 60, and paid the extra for the gig bag after
> seeing mine; he hasn't been disappointed.
>
> Charlie

Impedance matching mixer does it matter? [4]
From: MarkWGPSU <markwgpsu@aol...>
Subject: Impedance matching mixer does it matter?
Date: 01 Sep 2003 18:11:11 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Hi guys,

I use a PUTW pickup and preamp through an Ultrasound amp. I want to add a mixer
so I can switch beween the guitar and a microphone for another acoustic
instrument, i.e. autoharp or tenor guitar, while performing solo. I use the
second channel on the Ultrasound as a vocal channel, as Doc intended.

I like to play with effects on my instruments and would like the flexibility to
adjust effects at the mixer while performing. Alesis has a Multimix 8FX with a
hundred built-in effects. I'd love to have those effects handy while I play.

I know Ultrasound engineered the PAMM to have the correct throughput impedance
to optimize its equipment, so the PAM would be a good choice. But, iit doesn't
have the effects. The Alesis is the same money but has the effects.

Is the Alesis inferior for my application? Their manual does not list the
impedance information. I want the best sound I can get. I'm also have a very
limited budget, so if I can get the Alesis mixer with effects for the same
price as the PAMM I would go for it. I don't want to sacrifice sound quality or
power.

BTW, I use for playing in the county home.

THANKS!

Mark
York
PA


From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Impedance matching mixer does it matter?
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 18:39:33 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

<markwgpsu@aol...> (MarkWGPSU) wrote in
news:<20030901141111.13197.00000235@mb-m15...>:

> Hi guys,
>
> I use a PUTW pickup and preamp through an Ultrasound amp. I want to
> add a mixer so I can switch beween the guitar and a microphone for
> another acoustic instrument, i.e. autoharp or tenor guitar, while
> performing solo. I use the second channel on the Ultrasound as a vocal
> channel, as Doc intended.
>
> I like to play with effects on my instruments and would like the
> flexibility to adjust effects at the mixer while performing. Alesis
> has a Multimix 8FX with a hundred built-in effects. I'd love to have
> those effects handy while I play.
>
> I know Ultrasound engineered the PAMM to have the correct throughput
> impedance to optimize its equipment, so the PAM would be a good
> choice. But, iit doesn't have the effects. The Alesis is the same
> money but has the effects.
>
> Is the Alesis inferior for my application? Their manual does not list
> the impedance information. I want the best sound I can get. I'm also
> have a very limited budget, so if I can get the Alesis mixer with
> effects for the same price as the PAMM I would go for it. I don't want
> to sacrifice sound quality or power.

At the top of your post, you say you use the "PUTW pickup and preamp." So if
you're using a preamp on the guitar, then you should have no trouble running
straight into the Alesis mixer line input. No impedance issues, as long as
the pickup is already buffered with an onboard preamp.

--
Mike Barrs


From: Marshall Woodall (nospam) <mwoodall@optonline...>
Subject: Re: Impedance matching mixer does it matter?
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:24:39 GMT
Organization: Optimum Online

Mark,

     You should be able to plug in the line output of any small mixer (most
likely -10dbm) to the Effects Return input on the amp with no problem.
You'll probably want to lift the ground at either the mixer or the amp but
not both. I do exactly that with a small behringer mixer into my Utrasound
with great results. You could even use the preamp of the "guitar channel"
to feed from the Effects send jack into one of the mixer channels if you
want to still use the Ultrasound's Preamp combined with other sources, Take
care-

Marshall

"MarkWGPSU" <<markwgpsu@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030901141111.13197.00000235@mb-m15...>...
> Hi guys,
>
> I use a PUTW pickup and preamp through an Ultrasound amp. I want to add a
mixer
> so I can switch beween the guitar and a microphone for another acoustic
> instrument, i.e. autoharp or tenor guitar, while performing solo. I use
the
> second channel on the Ultrasound as a vocal channel, as Doc intended.
>
> I like to play with effects on my instruments and would like the
flexibility to
> adjust effects at the mixer while performing. Alesis has a Multimix 8FX
with a
> hundred built-in effects. I'd love to have those effects handy while I
play.
>
> I know Ultrasound engineered the PAMM to have the correct throughput
impedance
> to optimize its equipment, so the PAM would be a good choice. But, iit
doesn't
> have the effects. The Alesis is the same money but has the effects.
>
> Is the Alesis inferior for my application? Their manual does not list the
> impedance information. I want the best sound I can get. I'm also have a
very
> limited budget, so if I can get the Alesis mixer with effects for the same
> price as the PAMM I would go for it. I don't want to sacrifice sound
quality or
> power.
>
> BTW, I use for playing in the county home.
>
>
> THANKS!
>
> Mark
> York
> PA


From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Impedance matching mixer does it matter?
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:24:23 GMT

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:24:39 GMT, "Marshall Woodall"
<(nospam)<mwoodall@optonline...>> wrote:

>Mark,

>You'll probably want to lift the ground at either the mixer or the amp but
>not both. I do exactly that with a small behringer mixer into my Utrasound

Hi Mark: I use a set-up like that too but never did anything with the
grounds. What's the purpose/benefit?
Sherm

Good acoustic amp to play and SING through [29]
From: Ron <oddonenm@yahoo...>
Subject: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 20 Sep 2003 23:40:52 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

I have plenty of equipment. It is bulky and hard to carry around.
Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic. At
least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.
Thanks.


From: RAY BOYCE <raymond.spamoutboyce3@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 07:21:34 GMT

Ultrasound Pro 100, a little more than your stated price range, but a great
1-cab choice. A preferable two cab choice IMO would be the 50 DS2 with 50
E powered extension.

Both choices are compact and light. The 50 DS2 allows you to use more than
one cab only when you need it, although even the 2 cab setup would likely be
pleasantly surprising to you for portability. These don't provide a huge
bottom end, but it's adequate, and very natural sounding for acoustic
guitar.

~ray

"Ron" <<oddonenm@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<6f9839e9.0309202240.345742bc@posting...>...
> I have plenty of equipment. It is bulky and hard to carry around.
> Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
> with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic. At
> least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
> important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.
> Thanks.


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 21 Sep 2003 18:37:40 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>Ultrasound Pro 100, a little more than your stated price range, but a great
>1-cab choice. A preferable two cab choice IMO would be the 50 DS2 with 50
>E powered extension.

IMHO, having tried the 50-watt Ultrasound with 50-watt extension, it is not up
to use as a vocal plus guitar PA. Maybe the 100-watter would be, but I can
tell you that the 50 was not.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:59:56 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Ron wrote:

> I have plenty of equipment. It is bulky and hard to carry around.
> Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
> with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic. At
> least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
> important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.

Marshall AS50R. Cheapest reverb/chorus two channel with good EQ and
impedances, for the money. About half your budget if you hunt round.
AER Alpha (only 40 watts) is in my opinion a killer - so small and light
you don't even need a hand, goes in a shoulder gig bag, and it will
power a condensor mic - which can make 40 watts equal 75 watts on the
vocal front, easily, just through clarity and range. Might just be in
your budget. No amp has a better steel string acoustic sound if you want
a modern effect (not warm like the Ultrasound or the Marshall - very
airy and clear).

David


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 21 Sep 2003 18:35:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<I have plenty of equipment. It is bulky and hard to carry around.
Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic. At
least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.
Thanks.>>

I do exactly that with a Trace-Elliot TA-100R. More than $500, though..

Unless you can find a used one.

I also have one of these, which gives me more mixing power, decent digital
effects if I need them, and some patchability, including the ability to run a
monitor or second FOH speaker:

http://www.carvin.com/cgi-bin/Isearch.exe?CFG=2&P2=S400&P1=SYS1

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 19:07:40 GMT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com

In article <<6f9839e9.0309202240.345742bc@posting...>>, Ron
<<oddonenm@yahoo...>> wrote:

> I have plenty of equipment. It is bulky and hard to carry around.
> Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
> with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic. At
> least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
> important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.

If you're interested in a Marshall AS80-R, email me. I've got one I'll
sell for a bit less than you're looking to spend. Extremely versatile,
reverb and chorus, separate inputs and EQ for mic and acoustic guitar
(and electric guitar, if that's of any interest).

                                        --Al Evans--

From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:32:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Al Evans" <<al@tbtm...>> wrote in message
news:210920031407415764%<al@tbtm...>...
> In article <<6f9839e9.0309202240.345742bc@posting...>>, Ron
> <<oddonenm@yahoo...>> wrote:
>
> > I have plenty of equipment. It is bulky and hard to carry around.
> > Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
> > with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic. At
> > least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
> > important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.
>
> If you're interested in a Marshall AS80-R, email me. I've got one I'll
> sell for a bit less than you're looking to spend. Extremely versatile,
> reverb and chorus, separate inputs and EQ for mic and acoustic guitar
> (and electric guitar, if that's of any interest).
>

The marshall is a fine unit as are the Ultrasounds
be very afraid of some of the other stuff
George


From: <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:11:10 -0400

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:32:34 GMT, "George Gleason"
<<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:

>The marshall is a fine unit as are the Ultrasounds
>be very afraid of some of the other stuff

I thought those little SLS speakers sounded fantastic in VA 2 years
ago, George. Seems like if this guy could do the power and mixing in
some really compact way it'd be almost as convenient as the guitar/vox
amp he's talking about. If I had the dough that's the way I'd be
going. Not as convenient as something you could carry in one hand
though, I suppose.

FWIW, I've played about 20 jobs now with my Ultrasound 50+50 set-up.
Still means a few trips to the car (pedal board, bag of cables,
speaker & mic stands, and a 30w U/S for monitor.)

Sherm


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 21 Sep 2003 22:29:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<<<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:

>The marshall is a fine unit as are the Ultrasounds
>be very afraid of some of the other stuff>>

George, I A/Bed the Marshall next to a Trace.

No contest.

As an acoustic guitar amp, I found the Ultrasound 50 (with additional 50
outboard) to be really very good. Liked it. Warm, detailed, etc.

It's in the vocal dept that it lacks clarity and power. 50 watts, at least in
that conficuration, was insufficient. I have not tried the 100-watter, but
suspect that it might satisfy me. I will tellyou that the little Carvin unit I
have is much better for acoustic plus vocals than was the 50-watt Ultrasound.

As it is, my Trace-Elliot TA100R does a better job than any other stand-alone
I've tried in its size class, so I'll keep it. I'd guess that I have something
like 300-400 gigs on it, and it has never so much as bolwn a fuse.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:40:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Steve" <<sefstrat@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030921182916.27585.00000248@mb-m02...>...
> <<<<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
>
> >The marshall is a fine unit as are the Ultrasounds
> >be very afraid of some of the other stuff>>
>
> George, I A/Bed the Marshall next to a Trace.
>
> No contest.
>
> As an acoustic guitar amp, I found the Ultrasound 50 (with additional 50
> outboard) to be really very good. Liked it. Warm, detailed, etc.
>
> It's in the vocal dept that it lacks clarity and power. 50 watts, at
least in
> that conficuration, was insufficient. I have not tried the 100-watter,
but
> suspect that it might satisfy me. I will tellyou that the little Carvin
unit I
> have is much better for acoustic plus vocals than was the 50-watt
Ultrasound.
>
> As it is, my Trace-Elliot TA100R does a better job than any other
stand-alone
> I've tried in its size class, so I'll keep it. I'd guess that I have
something
> like 300-400 gigs on it, and it has never so much as bolwn a fuse.
>
The Trace is the standard by which all other acoustic combo's are judged by
IMO
I think considerably less of the carvin
George


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 21 Sep 2003 23:56:25 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<The Trace is the standard by which all other acoustic combo's are judged by
IMO
I think considerably less of the carvin
George>>

Well, I thought that you might!

The Carvin is actually a very good deal for the dollars. Hard to get a
4-channel mixer with digital effects, patch points and a 100-watt power amp
built into a 10-inch-with horn speaker enclosure for those kind of bucks, plus
it'll drive an outboard speaker as a monitor or additonal FOH.

I use it in rooms that are either a little large for the Trace alone, or in
situations where I need more than two channels plus monitoring (say, a duo), in
small to medium rooms. It sounds pretty good. No, not like top-of-the-line
stuff, but pretty darn good for these kinds of applications.

The real bonus is the included battery. Good without AC power for about 4
hours at lower volumes or about 2 hours pushed hard. I added a second,
optional battery (all internal); minel'' do any gig at full strength without AC
power. REALLY nice for those summer gigs in park pavilions where they have no
power. Hell, if the power died in a club, I could finish the night by
candelight (that actually might be kind of cool).

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: LarryLarry2003 <larrylarry2003@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 22 Sep 2003 01:23:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

George wrote:
<<The Trace is the standard by which all other acoustic combo's are judged by
IMO>

I had the Trace and did not like the sound at all - too electric. Sold it and
bought a Peavey Ecoustic 112 that sounded much more acoustic; and it was a lot
cheaper.

Larry


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:55:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"LarryLarry2003" <<larrylarry2003@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030921212348.06157.00001099@mb-m10...>...
> George wrote:
> <<The Trace is the standard by which all other acoustic combo's are judged
by
> IMO>
>
> I had the Trace and did not like the sound at all - too electric. Sold it
and
> bought a Peavey Ecoustic 112 that sounded much more acoustic; and it was a
lot
> cheaper.
>
Most pro touring acoustic acts (I have worked with at least a hundred) if
they ask for backline to be provided the Trace is(almost) always the
requested amp
esp for acoustic bass players
George


From: LarryLarry2003 <larrylarry2003@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 22 Sep 2003 11:37:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

George wrote
<<Most pro touring acoustic acts (I have worked with at least a hundred) if
they ask for backline to be provided the Trace is(almost) always the requested
amp esp for acoustic bass players>>

I think it comes down to the kind of sound you want. I wanted a purely
acoustic guitar sound, but louder. The Trace sounded like a cross between an
acoustic guitar and Fender Strat. That may be desirable to some, but not what
I wanted.

Larry


From: George <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:51:12 GMT
Organization: George's Pro Sound Co.

In article <<20030922073732.19548.00001039@mb-m20...>>,

 larrylarry2003@aol.com (LarryLarry2003) wrote:
> George wrote
> <<Most pro touring acoustic acts (I have worked with at least a hundred) if
> they ask for backline to be provided the Trace is(almost) always the requested
> amp esp for acoustic bass players>>
>
> I think it comes down to the kind of sound you want. I wanted a purely
> acoustic guitar sound, but louder. The Trace sounded like a cross between an
> acoustic guitar and Fender Strat. That may be desirable to some, but not what
> I wanted.
>
> Larry
understood and the performers I mentioned were not singing through tier
traces either it was for thier on stage sound only I would mic thier
instruments for house sound
George


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 22 Sep 2003 15:05:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<I think it comes down to the kind of sound you want. I wanted a purely
acoustic guitar sound, but louder. The Trace sounded like a cross between an
acoustic guitar and Fender Strat. That may be desirable to some, but not what
I wanted.

Larry>>

Gotta wonder which one you tried, or how you had it set.

In my experience, the Trace has the truest reproduction of any amp I've tried.

There's a reason that it's the "standard" for so many touring acts.

There are different Trace amps, of course...mine is the TA-100R. Others do
sound different, especially due to speaker configuratoin differences.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:39:24 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

<<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<qd4smvcdkom1n7vokh5afdtriugk134a04@4ax...>...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:32:34 GMT, "George Gleason"
> <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
>
> >The marshall is a fine unit as are the Ultrasounds
> >be very afraid of some of the other stuff
>
> I thought those little SLS speakers sounded fantastic in VA 2 years
> ago, George. Seems like if this guy could do the power and mixing in
> some really compact way it'd be almost as convenient as the guitar/vox
> amp he's talking about. If I had the dough that's the way I'd be
> going. Not as convenient as something you could carry in one hand
> though, I suppose.
>
well over his stated budget but I do have several pairs of the 8190's in
the feild now and have yet to haer a "boy if only they" from anyone
a pair is going for 900$ delivered
George


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:26:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3f6ef4ff.1208227@news...>...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:39:24 GMT, "George Gleason"
> <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> >
> ><<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
> >news:<qd4smvcdkom1n7vokh5afdtriugk134a04@4ax...>...
> >> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:32:34 GMT, "George Gleason"
> >> <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >The marshall is a fine unit as are the Ultrasounds
> >> >be very afraid of some of the other stuff
> >>
> >> I thought those little SLS speakers sounded fantastic in VA 2 years
> >> ago, George. Seems like if this guy could do the power and mixing in
> >> some really compact way it'd be almost as convenient as the guitar/vox
> >> amp he's talking about. If I had the dough that's the way I'd be
> >> going. Not as convenient as something you could carry in one hand
> >> though, I suppose.
> >>
> >well over his stated budget
>
> Forgot about his budget.
>
> > but I do have several pairs of the 8190's in
> >the feild now and have yet to haer a "boy if only they" from anyone
> >a pair is going for 900$ delivered
>
> You had the 8190s in VA? What would you consider a least expensive
> power amp option for those things?
>
> Sherm

depends on how much weight yoyu care to carry
the new bahringer amps look intresting though i havent owned one yet
the qsc has the rmx as its price leader
I like the 20 lbs pLX much better but it is more pricey
qsc has a B stock sell through that anyone can buy from, dealers and non
dealers alike www.qscaudio.com
perhaps there is something there for you
I ran them off the ICON's amps which gave them 300 watts each into thier 4
ohm load
any amp from 250 watts to 600 watts into 4 ohms should be fine
there are two 8190 cabs
the 8190 that looks like a floor monitor and teh 8190T that looks like a
trap box the 8190t included fly points and a handle and is the ones I spoke
of at 450 each(list 595.00) the 8190(no T) still have the pole mounts but
no fly points they are about 50$ cheaper each
George
>
>


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:53:12 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Al Evans wrote:

> In article <<6f9839e9.0309202240.345742bc@posting...>>, Ron
> <<oddonenm@yahoo...>> wrote:
>
>
>>I have plenty of equipment. It is bulky and hard to carry around.
>>Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
>>with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic. At
>>least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
>>important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.
>
>
> If you're interested in a Marshall AS80-R, email me. I've got one I'll
> sell for a bit less than you're looking to spend. Extremely versatile,
> reverb and chorus, separate inputs and EQ for mic and acoustic guitar
> (and electric guitar, if that's of any interest).
>

He's strong, Al is. The AS80-R, like the Fender Acoustisonic, qualifies
for that 'bulky and hard to carry around' tag. The AS50-R while nothing
like as versatile volume wise is at least just light enough to carry
with your guitar in the other hand, and not have to stop every 100 yards
to swap hands!

David


From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@adelphia...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:53:33 GMT

Ron,

> Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
> with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic.
At
> least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
> important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.
> Thanks.

I have a Genz-Benz Shenandoah that I think fits the acoustic
guitar/vocal bill perfectly. Doesn't seem to get mentioned as much as
the Ultrasounds around here, but personally I think it does a better
job on vocals. I A-B them & bought the Shen.

*** Of course this was not the latest Shen which is 100W (mine is 85W)
nor was the Ultrasound one of their new 100W combos. I'd love to do
that test some day. ;-) ***

I had the Marshall AS50R before the Genz-Benz & liked it a lot. I sold
it to a friend & have had a chance to hear it recently. Still sounds
good. I like the versatility & increased Watts of the Shen, though. It
(AS50R) is a nice compact unit, though, & still costs under $400.

Good luck,

Frank Wiewandt


From: Jcarp <jcarp.1@starpower...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 22 Sep 2003 08:19:30 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

I've got a Fender Acoustasonic Jr. that I don't use that much anymore.

 I was using it to play at nursing homes and it worked just fine.  Did
a bar gig where I only had to run the guitar through it and did a few
coffee house/open mic kind of things running vocals through it and it
worked fine as well. I'm not using it and want to sell it to finance
other GAS type purchases. It's got reverb/chorus and two channels.

Email me if you are interested.

Jcarp

<oddonenm@yahoo...> (Ron) wrote in message news:<<6f9839e9.0309202240.345742bc@posting...>>...
> I have plenty of equipment. It is bulky and hard to carry around.
> Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
> with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic. At
> least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
> important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.
> Thanks.


From: JGreen <john_k_green@lycos...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 22 Sep 2003 12:39:15 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

<oddonenm@yahoo...> (Ron) wrote in message news:<<6f9839e9.0309202240.345742bc@posting...>>...
> I have plenty of equipment. It is bulky and hard to carry around.
> Want to simplify now and get a single cabinet - like a guitar amp -
> with two inputs, one for guitar and one for mic, or both for mic. At
> least one channel needs reverb. Sounding good when sung through is
> important. 75 watts would be plenty and looking in $500 range.
> Thanks.

I use a Centaur Acoustic PA amp.They come in 60 and 100 watts with a
12" or 10"speaker. Mine is 60 watts with a 12" and a tweeter. It has
1/4 "input for guitar XLR for a Mic and a RCA input . Very clear sound

 in a compact package.

From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:58:45 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Steve wrote:
>>Ultrasound Pro 100, a little more than your stated price range, but a great
>>1-cab choice. A preferable two cab choice IMO would be the 50 DS2 with 50
>>E powered extension.
>
>
> IMHO, having tried the 50-watt Ultrasound with 50-watt extension, it is not up
> to use as a vocal plus guitar PA. Maybe the 100-watter would be, but I can
> tell you that the 50 was not.
>

I beg to differ. I don't play stadiums, but in smaller venues,
for acoustic music, my 50-watt DS2 with a 50E extension cabinet
does very nicely, and the quality of the sound is excellent -
both voice and guitar. I will reiterate, I don't play loud rock
and roll. I don't want to. So for my softer, acoustic music,
voice and guitar, the UltraSounds work a treat. They are crystal
clear, clean, and project quite nicely. I'm trying to entertain
the folks, not deafen them.

	-Ralph

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


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:16:44 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Steve wrote:
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>>>Ultrasound Pro 100, a little more than your stated price range, but a great
>>>>1-cab choice. A preferable two cab choice IMO would be the 50 DS2 with 50
>>>>E powered extension.
>>>
>>>
>>>IMHO, having tried the 50-watt Ultrasound with 50-watt extension, it is not
>>
>>up
>>
>>>to use as a vocal plus guitar PA. Maybe the 100-watter would be, but I can
>>>tell you that the 50 was not.
>>>
>>
>>I beg to differ. I don't play stadiums, but in smaller venues,
>>for acoustic music, my 50-watt DS2 with a 50E extension cabinet
>>does very nicely, and the quality of the sound is excellent -
>>both voice and guitar. I will reiterate, I don't play loud rock
>>and roll. I don't want to. So for my softer, acoustic music,
>>voice and guitar, the UltraSounds work a treat. They are crystal
>>clear, clean, and project quite nicely. I'm trying o entertain
>>the folks, not deafen them.
>
>
> To each his own. I tried one with the 50 watt extension, and found it poor for
> vocals, but very good for guitar, at pretty low levels. One Trace-Elliot
> TA-100R outperformed both 50-wat Ultrasound cabs.
>
> I have not, however, had the chance to try the 100-watt Ultrasound.
>
>

Well, Steve, I'm not wanting to start anything or flog a dead
horse, but I will mention that in addition to the 100-watt model,
they have a 200-watt model that is the cat's meouw. I tried it
last year at TX-3 and it was great - smaller than the 100-watt
job which has four speakers - it has only two, but they do a
pretty good job. However, I couldn't afford that one, it is a
good bit more than the 50-watters.

	-Ralph

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


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 24 Sep 2003 11:05:47 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Steve,

The PRO 100 is a completely different unit than the 100DS2 in terms of features
and volume. We made the decision to go with a much more expensive speaker to
achieve the same results. In fact we built the PRO series to do away with the
volume issue. And we have managed to keep the amp an UltraSound in terms of
tone.

The Doc


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 24 Sep 2003 17:23:10 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

The other thing you will like about the PRO 100 is it does have it's own
effects processor and the 2nd channel is set dead flat. What's cool is to use
a POD unit thru it. You can really hear what a POD was intended to do.

The Doc

If you want the full skinny just give me a holler 888-308-1557


From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:59:23 GMT

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:16:44 -0500, misifus
<<rseibert@cox-internet...>> wrote:

>Well, Steve, I'm not wanting to start anything or flog a dead
>horse, but I will mention that in addition to the

Howdoooooo, Ralph?

Well, he said 'not up to it . . . in his opinion' and that's cool.
As I said above, I've played about 20 jobs now with the 50+50
Ultrasound rig so I'd have to say its 'up to it' at least in the sense
that it does work. A fancy PA rig is way out of my $ league soooooo .
. . needs must when the devil drives. (Whatever the hell that
means.)

FWIW, I've had some local, full-time pro muso pals say they thought
the sound was 'good' or 'just fine' but there's a politeness element
there, I know. OTOH, they're good enough friends that if the sound
was embarrasingly horrible I'm pretty sure they'd be looking out for
me enough to tell me that.

So the U/S 50+50 concept is 'up to it' by my standards but I can see
where they might not be to Steve's or someone else's. I'm asking a
lot from 50 watts per side and four little 8" speakers, I know. One
of the 2 rooms I've been playing is pretty big, too. Definitely
pushing the envelope in there, I'm sure.

Sherm


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: 24 Sep 2003 15:40:29 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<
Well, Steve, I'm not wanting to start anything or flog a dead
horse, but I will mention that in addition to the 100-watt model,
they have a 200-watt model that is the cat's meouw. I tried it
last year at TX-3 and it was great - smaller than the 100-watt
job which has four speakers - it has only two, but they do a
pretty good job. However, I couldn't afford that one, it is a
good bit more than the 50-watters.

	-Ralph>>
200 watts....wow. Likely a bit much for me...bu no one says you gotta USE all
that headroom, right?

Sometig about the 4x5" format of my TA-100R that is interesting, by the way:
the sound doesn't 'searchlight beam' out of the amp, the way so many other amp
do (especially electric amps with 12" speakers). It sems to pretty evenly fill
the room. Nice.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Jerry <gmtwest@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Good acoustic amp to play and SING through
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:43:31 GMT
Organization: Secret Life Productions

Ron,

    While following this thread, I thought it best to look at what you 
had originally asked the group. I do a few small gigs around the metro
Phoenix area and have the Trace Acoustic TA-50R and the -100R. Some of
the gigs are outdoors and I've used both quite successfully there as
well. Remember, unless you are the headliner and everyone is there to
see you and nothing else, you want to be heard but not to the exclusion
of everything and everyone else. Even the 50 watt unit does a very good
job at carrying your mic and guitar. And you won't be injured carrying
either of these (although the 100 is a bit heavier).

    Since the reverb and effects loop on these cover both channels, it 
takes a little practice to dial in the sound you want. I disagree with
those that call Trace's sound "too electric." When you want to be heard
past the first table, true acoustic sound is not what you will get, once
you process any signal, anyway.

Jerry

PS. I might like to sell that 50 if you're interested....

Tips on shipping a 50 pound amplifier?
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Tips on shipping a 50 pound amplifier?
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:39:10 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Andrew Wang" <andrew_wang@*.com> wrote in
news:y59cb.789$<541.496@nwrdny02...>:

> Been hanging out here for quite a while now and finally decided to cut
> the ties to my electric guitar roots. I'm selling my electric guitar
> amp equipment.
>
> It's actually 3 separate pieces, each weighing 50 lbs. Does anyone
> have advice regarding packing and shipping a 50 lb. preamp head and a
> set of 2 - 50 lb. speaker cabs? I was planning to take it all to the
> local UPS store to pack and ship for me.
>
> I expect that it'll be about $15-20 to pack and up to $45-50 per piece
> for shipping if it's across the US. I'd appreciate any suggestions
> for better ways to go about shipping this. Thanks.

If you don't want to let UPS do it, get your own supplies online where it's
cheap:

http://www.uline.com/index.asp

http://www.bubblefast.com/

Get some large-sized bubble wrap on a big roll. Wrap multiple layers of
bubble wrap all around the gear, and secure with duct tape. I mean LOTS of
layers. In my experience, this works much better than plastic peanuts or
styrofoam blocks. I mummified all my fragile gear in bubblewrap when we
moved cross-country a few years ago (including a 65lb. Rivera tube combo
amp), and everything survived. Use a very strong cardboard box, and if you
can't find a strong enouigh box, nest one box inside another, with some
bubblewrap or "air pillows" between the two. Bubblewrap rules. But it's
expensive at the UPS or U-Haul stores. Better to get it online, even if you
then let UPS put the wrapped gear in the actual box.

If you're shipping a speaker cabinet, put something in front of the grille
to prevent a puncture, like a thin sheet of plywood, or a stack of
cardboard.

--
Mike Barrs

RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar [18]
From: A Nengineer <stunt@polhemus...>
Subject: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:42:24 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived. I must say it is one
cool lookin' axe. But of course, it is pretty "quiet" especially down on
that fifth string!

It has Fishman electronics onboard ("Classic IV") so I presume it'll sound
nice amplified, but...

What the heck do I use?

You wouldn't want a regular bass amp, would you? We don't play our flat-tops
through stacks of Marshalls after all.

But an acoustic guitar amp wouldn't be right, either, would it?

What are some recommendations?

(Yes, as usual, price counts!)


From: George <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:05:10 GMT
Organization: George's Pro Sound Co.

In article <Asmcb.2160$<RW4.617@newsread4...>>,

 "A Nengineer" <stunt@polhemus.cc> wrote:
> Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived. I must say it is one
> cool lookin' axe. But of course, it is pretty "quiet" especially down on
> that fifth string!
>
> It has Fishman electronics onboard ("Classic IV") so I presume it'll sound
> nice amplified, but...
>
> What the heck do I use?
>
> You wouldn't want a regular bass amp, would you? We don't play our flat-tops
> through stacks of Marshalls after all.
>
> But an acoustic guitar amp wouldn't be right, either, would it?
>
> What are some recommendations?
>
> (Yes, as usual, price counts!)
>
>

I see lots of trace elliot 100 watters and a good number of swr
california blondes on pro stages
george


From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:08:32 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico

Actually yes...a bass amp, an acoustic amp, a keyboard amp or straight
through the PA would all deliver the proper dynamic response...just 'cuz
it's a piezo picking it up doesn't mean it isn't a signal...if you go
through a pre-amp first, but I thought they had one built in....no point in
over processing it....give some different amps a try until you find one you
like.

Cheers, CS

--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.

 Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm

"A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message
news:Asmcb.2160$<RW4.617@newsread4...>...
> Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived. I must say it is one
> cool lookin' axe. But of course, it is pretty "quiet" especially down on
> that fifth string!
>
> It has Fishman electronics onboard ("Classic IV") so I presume it'll sound
> nice amplified, but...
>
> What the heck do I use?
>
> You wouldn't want a regular bass amp, would you? We don't play our
flat-tops
> through stacks of Marshalls after all.
>
> But an acoustic guitar amp wouldn't be right, either, would it?
>
> What are some recommendations?
>
> (Yes, as usual, price counts!)
>
>


From: David Martel <marte005@hostingstorm...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:49:11 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

Cyber,

   I'm not a bass player but I think he is right to wonder about using a
bass amp. Don't bass amps have the same design optimization that makes other
electric guitar amps inappropriate for acoustic use? I suspect that a
keyboard amp would be able to handle the frequencies of his instrument.
Certainly a good PA would work
"CyberSerf" <<nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>> wrote in message
news:pLmcb.4357$<1H3.337013@news20...>...
> Actually yes...a bass amp, an acoustic amp, a keyboard amp or straight
> through the PA would all deliver the proper dynamic response...just 'cuz
> it's a piezo picking it up doesn't mean it isn't a signal...if you go
> through a pre-amp first, but I thought they had one built in....no point
in
> over processing it....give some different amps a try until you find one
you
> like.
>
> Cheers, CS
>
> --
> ---
> The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
> As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
> Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm
>
>
> "A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message
> news:Asmcb.2160$<RW4.617@newsread4...>...
> > Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived. I must say it is
one
> > cool lookin' axe. But of course, it is pretty "quiet" especially down on
> > that fifth string!
> >
> > It has Fishman electronics onboard ("Classic IV") so I presume it'll
sound
> > nice amplified, but...
> >
> > What the heck do I use?
> >
> > You wouldn't want a regular bass amp, would you? We don't play our
> flat-tops
> > through stacks of Marshalls after all.
> >
> > But an acoustic guitar amp wouldn't be right, either, would it?
> >
> > What are some recommendations?
> >
> > (Yes, as usual, price counts!)
> >
> >
>
>


From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:18:03 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico

David,

You may be right, but, in my experience there is nothing to indicate that a
bass amp wouldn't work fine...it is, after all, a bass...so big cones and
big bottoms are good and, if they are optimized, it is to accentuate the
"bass" sound...which is still what we're talking about. Moreover, IMHO, the
frequency response of a bass amp is more comparable with an acoustic
amp/PA/Keyboard than with an electric amp (with each electric model adding
its own distinctive (or copycat) "signature" to the sound). Of course there
are some bass amps that color the sound much like an electric guitar
amp...I'm thinking Fender Bassman here...often used by electric
guitarist...but many have everything you'd need in a rather flat way. The
only thing they don't generally have that might be useful with a piezo/mic
dual source PU is a notch filter or some other frequency dial-out to help
control feedback at higher output...but, if you put a parametric EQ in front
of the signal (e.g. Boss PQ-50), you'd have everything you need. To give you
an idea, consider the following...many bass players do not even use a bass
amp, they use the PA instead (think Getty Lee and his washing machines to
match Alex's stacks). Of course, some do use amps...so, it appears both can
be used with a regular bass and generate equally pleasant responses. Now,
AFAIK, a PA is quite close to an acoustic amp (in fact, my Marshal AS50R
with an XLR doubles for my PA on my smaller singles gigs). A Keyboard
amplifier likewise has many similarities. In effect, my advice is to try a
few of each type...try it through a PA or two...play with the EQ...I love
the bass through our PA...it brings the rhythm right up front and fits well
in the mix, try it through a few acoustic amps, Marshall, Trace, give 'em a
go...try it through a couple of keyboard amps, and, yes, give a few bass
amps a go...bring the axe to the music store and take a walk through the
park...if nothing, I think this may help narrow it down.

Cheers, CS

--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.

 Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm

"David Martel" <<marte005@hostingstorm...>> wrote in message
news:Hbpcb.6139$<pB6.4461@newsread2...>...
> Cyber,
>
> I'm not a bass player but I think he is right to wonder about using a
> bass amp. Don't bass amps have the same design optimization that makes
other
> electric guitar amps inappropriate for acoustic use? I suspect that a
> keyboard amp would be able to handle the frequencies of his instrument.
> Certainly a good PA would work
> "CyberSerf" <<nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>> wrote in message
> news:pLmcb.4357$<1H3.337013@news20...>...
> > Actually yes...a bass amp, an acoustic amp, a keyboard amp or straight
> > through the PA would all deliver the proper dynamic response...just 'cuz
> > it's a piezo picking it up doesn't mean it isn't a signal...if you go
> > through a pre-amp first, but I thought they had one built in....no point
> in
> > over processing it....give some different amps a try until you find one
> you
> > like.
> >
> > Cheers, CS
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
> > As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
> > Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm
> >
> >
> > "A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message
> > news:Asmcb.2160$<RW4.617@newsread4...>...
> > > Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived. I must say it is
> one
> > > cool lookin' axe. But of course, it is pretty "quiet" especially down
on
> > > that fifth string!
> > >
> > > It has Fishman electronics onboard ("Classic IV") so I presume it'll
> sound
> > > nice amplified, but...
> > >
> > > What the heck do I use?
> > >
> > > You wouldn't want a regular bass amp, would you? We don't play our
> > flat-tops
> > > through stacks of Marshalls after all.
> > >
> > > But an acoustic guitar amp wouldn't be right, either, would it?
> > >
> > > What are some recommendations?
> > >
> > > (Yes, as usual, price counts!)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


From: David Martel <marte005@hostingstorm...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:39:01 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

Cyber,

   As I said I'm not a bass player though I've owned several bass amps. Amps
used with electric guitars (and probably electric basses) are designed to
color the signal and produce a "good" sound with magnetic pickups. The
frequency response of such amps is not flat. This is why such amps aren't
good for vocals. I know that piezo pickup acoustics don't sound as good
through a Peavey Mace as they do through a PA. PA's and keyboard amps are
not designed to color the signal that they receive. They have a fairly flat
frequency response.

Dave M.


From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:28:42 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico

David,

Understood...and perhaps our experience differs, but (always a but...) while
I agree that electric guitar amps are optimized for the sounds desired by
electric guitar players (which is why I didn't recommend trying any of these
for this purpose), the optimization has, IMHO, little to do with the PU
types requirements and more to do with 1) the tone of the (ideosyncratic)
amp 2) the way it is designed to be driven (OD/Distortion) 3) a boost of the
midrange and 4) a slightly tighter frequency range. While most bass amps (or
at least those I've played) may have #1 (an ideosyncratic tone), they are
quite flat with relations to the rest....generally speaking, they are not
designed to be overdriven or distorted, the mids are not boosted nor are the
lows cut. While the highs frequency harmonics may be attenuated by such an
amp (IMHO, do more to speaker size than any electronic intent), I think this
distinction makes it more amenable to the purpose...playing a bass. In any
event, I do understand your point, but I think I'll let those more versed
in the subtleties continue with the debate...David E. just pushed me off the
techinical map with his post ;-) ...when did he learn to speak Greek?

Cheers, CS

--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.

 Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm

"David Martel" <<marte005@hostingstorm...>> wrote in message
news:VdCcb.10879$<ai7.2813@newsread1...>...
> Cyber,
>
> As I said I'm not a bass player though I've owned several bass amps.
Amps
> used with electric guitars (and probably electric basses) are designed to
> color the signal and produce a "good" sound with magnetic pickups. The
> frequency response of such amps is not flat. This is why such amps aren't
> good for vocals. I know that piezo pickup acoustics don't sound as good
> through a Peavey Mace as they do through a PA. PA's and keyboard amps are
> not designed to color the signal that they receive. They have a fairly
flat
> frequency response.
>
> Dave M.
>
>


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: 25 Sep 2003 04:30:35 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

My daughter used her "regular" Trace-Elliot bass amp for an acoustic bass, and
it worked just fine.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:07:54 -0400
Organization: Library of Congress

David Martel wrote:
> Cyber,
>
> I'm not a bass player but I think he is right to wonder about using a
> bass amp. Don't bass amps have the same design optimization that makes other
> electric guitar amps inappropriate for acoustic use? I suspect that a
> keyboard amp would be able to handle the frequencies of his instrument.
> Certainly a good PA would work

Actually electric bass amps, keyboard amps, pa's and acoustic amps all
have a wide frequency response which is needed for amplifying a bass.
Electric guitar amps have too much midrange and also are designed to be
driven into distortion. As other posters have pointed out, a decent
small bass amp will likely do a better job than an acoustic guitar amp.

  Especially note the post that compared SWR's bass amps and acoustic amps.
Dick Thaxter

> "CyberSerf" <<nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>> wrote in message
> news:pLmcb.4357$<1H3.337013@news20...>...
>
>>Actually yes...a bass amp, an acoustic amp, a keyboard amp or straight
>>through the PA would all deliver the proper dynamic response...just 'cuz
>>it's a piezo picking it up doesn't mean it isn't a signal...if you go
>>through a pre-amp first, but I thought they had one built in....no point
>
> in
>
>>over processing it....give some different amps a try until you find one
>
> you
>
>>like.
>>
>>Cheers, CS
>>
>>--
>>---
>>The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
>>As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
>> Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear.htm
>>
>>
>>"A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message
>>news:Asmcb.2160$<RW4.617@newsread4...>...
>>
>>>Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived. I must say it is
>>
> one
>
>>>cool lookin' axe. But of course, it is pretty "quiet" especially down on
>>>that fifth string!
>>>
>>>It has Fishman electronics onboard ("Classic IV") so I presume it'll
>>
> sound
>
>>>nice amplified, but...
>>>
>>>What the heck do I use?
>>>
>>>You wouldn't want a regular bass amp, would you? We don't play our
>>
>>flat-tops
>>
>>>through stacks of Marshalls after all.
>>>
>>>But an acoustic guitar amp wouldn't be right, either, would it?
>>>
>>>What are some recommendations?
>>>
>>>(Yes, as usual, price counts!)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


From: RAY BOYCE <raymond.spamoutboyce3@verizon...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:12:05 GMT

You'd be well advised to consider "overtones" present on an acoustic bass.
A regular bass amp is not often optimized for this, or else its expensive
(eden/swr/etc) to add the capabilities needed for reproducing it.

Anything of quality components, designed as full range, with sufficient
cabinet volume for long wave will do nicely. Cant defeat physics. (You can
supplement them, but you can't defeat 'em. I'd recommend taking your bass
to the stores and trying some keyboard amps... they will be competitively
priced vs. the good bass stuff.

My absolute favorite amp for acoustic bass or baritone is the Roland
KC500.... I own one... I also own a Hartke 410XL /GK400 (original series),
which is a great electric bass setup, often the rider itself, but it doesn't
compare to the KC500 for acoustic. If you tend to like the "cannon" jumbo
6-string sound, it's pretty good for that... too. Should be available for
~$500. Variable DI out, mono and stereo is included, plus four stereo
inputs, including a TRS Mic input.

"A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message
news:Asmcb.2160$<RW4.617@newsread4...>...
> Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived. I must say it is one
> cool lookin' axe. But of course, it is pretty "quiet" especially down on
> that fifth string!
>
> It has Fishman electronics onboard ("Classic IV") so I presume it'll sound
> nice amplified, but...
>
> What the heck do I use?
>
> You wouldn't want a regular bass amp, would you? We don't play our
flat-tops
> through stacks of Marshalls after all.
>
> But an acoustic guitar amp wouldn't be right, either, would it?
>
> What are some recommendations?
>
> (Yes, as usual, price counts!)
>
>


From: Scott Kiefer <skiefer@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: 24 Sep 2003 19:23:36 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

"A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message news:<Asmcb.2160$<RW4.617@newsread4...>>...
> Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived. I must say it is one
> cool lookin' axe. But of course, it is pretty "quiet" especially down on
> that fifth string!
>

Well, first off, welcome to the basement.

> It has Fishman electronics onboard ("Classic IV") so I presume it'll >sound nice amplified, but...
>
> What the heck do I use?
>
> You wouldn't want a regular bass amp, would you? We don't play our >flat-tops through stacks of Marshalls after all.

Use a 'regular' bass amp. I wasn't happy at all with the SWR
California Blonde when I tried one with my Taylor AB-2--similar
electronics as yours, I think--especially below the A string. I don't
think it has the oomph to push a low 'B'. I ended up with a David Eden
Nemesis--200 watts, 12" and a tweeter. Had it for about four years now
and it has served me very well. Got a great deal on a used one from
Bass Northwest in Seattle--under $400.00. SWR, the maker of the
California Blonde, has a new line of inexpensive bass amps out--LAB 8,
10, 12 and 15. Retail is $299.00--499.00, but you can find 'em at
Musician's Friend or other places for between 20 and 30 percent off
list.

But--it really came alive when I added a Tech 21 Sansamp Bass Driver
Preamp/DI. Should be able to find one in the $150-200 range. The
preamp allows much more tonal flexibilty, I can plug straight into a
PA or recording board, it works great in the studio, and it also lets
me get a surprisingly good sound out of my other amp, an SWR Lab 8,
which is a great little beast for the money (local store had a great
deal--brand new for $199.00)--as long as you're playing with a small
group of unamplified folkj. It'll hold it's own against a couple of
guitars, banjo, mandolin, and dobro in coffee shop-type gigs.

Which is where I should be getting off to right now.... Good luck and
I'd be happy to answer any questions off list. As always, my opinion
only and try everything you can plug into.

Enjoy the new addition.
Best,
scott "blind dog smith" kiefer


From: Scott Kiefer <skiefer@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: 24 Sep 2003 22:51:32 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

<skiefer@yahoo...> (Scott Kiefer) wrote in message news:<<9f136172.0309241823.552693f@posting...>>...
> "A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message news:<Asmcb.2160$<RW4.617@newsread4...>>...
> > Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived.

<snipped>
> SWR, the maker of the California Blonde, has a new line of inexpensive > bass amps out--LAB 8,10, 12 and 15. Retail is $299.00--499.00, but you > can find 'em at Musician's Friend or other places for between 20 and 30 > percent off....
>

Sorry, was rushed--I meant to say L. A. series--LAB series were Gibson
(Norlin) amps in the late 70's.

The SWR Workingman's are nice too, as mentioned in another post,
though I do like at least a 12" if you're going with a single speaker.

scott


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:39:22 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

I seem to recall that a year or so ago, one of the makers of
acoustic guitar amps had a model intended specifically for
amplifying an acoustic bass, but the maker eludes my memory. Was
it SWR, or Trace?, not sure, but someone had one.

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


From: TeleJr2 <telejr2@aol...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: 25 Sep 2003 02:51:24 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

The SWR Workingman's 10 is a nice little amp that should fill the bill
perfectly. Try www.chrisguitars.com. They have one for about $250, IIRC.
I've bought several instruments from Chris over the years, and have always
received great deals and great service.

Good Luck!

Ray Gibb
Houston, TX


From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: 25 Sep 2003 04:12:47 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<< The SWR Workingman's 10 is a nice little amp >>

I like mine. It gets along fine with the Tacoma Thunderchief ac bass, as well
as others, solid- and hollow-bodied electric basses.

stv


From: David Enke <putw@webcoast2coast...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:11:46 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

I've gone through quite a few bass rigs over the years, and my favorite
right now is a Presonus Acoustic Q pre-amp driving a pair or Mackie SRM450
powered speakers side by side, and a line out to the mains.
My small rig is a Roland KB500, or just one of the Mackies.

My big rig used to be an SWR Studio 220 driving a Ampeg 4x10 cabinet with
the low crossover output going through a 1200 watt power amp to a PAS 18" in
a sub cabinet. (I'm selling all this stuff if anyone wants to cover the
shipping or come to So. Colorado).
My bass is a solid-body fretless low B 5 string that I made about 10 years
ago, and uses a single #30 film bass pickup under the bridge saddles and an
on-board pre-amp. I set everything flat with the Acoustic Q and the Mackies,
and result sounds quite acoustic (especially through the Mackies).

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

"A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message
news:Asmcb.2160$<RW4.617@newsread4...>...
> Well, my Michael Kelley Five-String Bass has arrived. I must say it is one
> cool lookin' axe. But of course, it is pretty "quiet" especially down on
> that fifth string!
>
> It has Fishman electronics onboard ("Classic IV") so I presume it'll sound
> nice amplified, but...
>
> What the heck do I use?
>
> You wouldn't want a regular bass amp, would you? We don't play our
flat-tops
> through stacks of Marshalls after all.
>
> But an acoustic guitar amp wouldn't be right, either, would it?
>
> What are some recommendations?
>
> (Yes, as usual, price counts!)
>
>


From: David Enke <putw@webcoast2coast...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:38:34 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

"TarBabyTunes" <<tarbabytunes@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030925001404.10079.00000078@mb-m25...>...
> << my favorite
> right now is a Presonus Acoustic Q pre-amp driving a pair or Mackie SRM450
> powered speakers side by side, and a line out to the mains. >>
>
> DAMN, son! Thass some serious shite!
>
> Wow... cool.
>
> stv

Yea it is cool. The harmonic content of this bass is pretty huge, and the
pickups are flat down to around 3 hz. I should probably use a high pass
filter at 30-40 hz to increase the efficiency, but what the heck! The 18"
rig sounded kind of muddy on stage when pushed really hard, but the Mackies
throw the sound forward so much better, the sound is tight and punchy (at
least when I play it right). The Mackies are also used as my acoustic band's
pa system, but I get as many gigs playing bass, so why not consolidate
things a bit as long as I don't get too excited and blow them up?

David Enke


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATION: Amp to use with Acoustic Bass Guitar
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:20:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"TarBabyTunes" <<tarbabytunes@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030925120252.01052.00000160@mb-m27...>...
> << The harmonic content of this bass is pretty huge, and the
> pickups are flat down to around 3 hz. >>
>
>
> You can tell by all the folks running for the loo when you generate those
> single-digit waves.
>
> <GG>
>
> Too bad we can't figure out how to aim such frequencies. The myth of the
> low-frequency, non-lethal weapon lives! <GGG>
>

 all it takes is a horn 1/4 the length of the wave to get some decent
directivty
or use Meyers trick of fireing a second speaker into the sound wave but out
of pahse to cancel bits of the main sound in effect reducing the omni
behavior of a lf sound to a cardiod shaped behavior

Behringer ACX1000 - Opinions, Please [2]
From: Walter Lane <walterlane@netzero...>
Subject: Re: Behringer ACX1000 - Opinions, Please
Date: 24 Sep 2003 17:47:49 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/

If you think you can get one at a good price then I'd say at least
consider it. But be perpared--the amp's kinda noisy. But if you tweek
it right, you an get a good signal over the noise floor and have a
good sounding amp with nice performance and features. The effects can
by extra noisy but I use just the reverb effect and it works well. I
got mine for $239 as a scratch and dent item but with full warranty.
It sounds really good. I've compared it with a Fender Acoustisonic and
like it better than that, plus it was priced better and has a wealth
of bussing and EQ features. I had a 30 watt Ultrasound. The sound was
totally transparently pure but just not enough power for my needs and
no reverb. While deciding what to do I ran across the Behringer on the
web and ordered it. I've had the Behringer for several months now and
like it; but I still may move up to a 50 or 100 watt Ultrasound.

walterlane

"A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message news:<CB4cb.812$<NX3.765@newsread3...>>...
> There's one on EBay right now. Looks nice, but is it?


From: RAY BOYCE <raymond.spamoutboyce3@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Behringer ACX1000 - Opinions, Please
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 04:01:39 GMT

I've not tried it but from reviews/friends... like above, "it's noisy"

"A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message
news:CB4cb.812$<NX3.765@newsread3...>...
> There's one on EBay right now. Looks nice, but is it?
>
>

Three channel acoustic amps [6]
From: Mike Cloud <clouds@nospamkiva...>
Subject: Three channel acoustic amps
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:33:46 -0400
Organization: Kiva Networking

Are there any three channel acoustic amps on the market other than the AER
Domino 2?

Mike


From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Three channel acoustic amps
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:59:38 GMT

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:33:46 -0400, "Mike Cloud"
<<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote:

>Are there any three channel acoustic amps on the market other than the AER
>Domino 2?
>
>Mike

I think Marshall acoustic amps used to have a 3rd channel for
electric (plus acoustic + mic) but I think they dropped the electric
input on the newer ones. Al Evans still has one, iirc.

You could always pick up a little mixer. I use a cheap little
behringer but I notice that Alesis now makes some mini-mixers with
built in effects. The 4 channel's @ $100, I believe.

Why 3 channels, if you don't mind my asking?

Sherm


From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: Three channel acoustic amps
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:56:00 GMT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com

In article <<3f743703.435830@news...>>, Sherm
<<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:33:46 -0400, "Mike Cloud"
> <<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote:
>
> >Are there any three channel acoustic amps on the market other than the AER
> >Domino 2?
> >
> >Mike
>
> I think Marshall acoustic amps used to have a 3rd channel for
> electric (plus acoustic + mic) but I think they dropped the electric
> input on the newer ones. Al Evans still has one, iirc.

That's correct. My Marshall AS80-R has three separate channels -- one
for mic, one high-Z "aux" input mainly for electric guitar, and one
"transducer" input for acoustic. Each has three-band EQ. The "electric"
channel has a switch to change its frequency response characteristics
from flat to "tailored for electric". The "transducer" input has
sweepable midrange, two notch filters, and a "pick attack control",
presumably for "quack" filtering.

It's versatile, and for sale... :-)

                                        --Al Evans--

From: The home <the_home@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Three channel acoustic amps
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:20:53 -0500

"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3f743703.435830@news...>...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:33:46 -0400, "Mike Cloud"
> <<clouds@nospamkiva...>> wrote:
>
> >Are there any three channel acoustic amps on the market other than the
AER
> >Domino 2?
> >
> >Mike
>
> I think Marshall acoustic amps used to have a 3rd channel for
> electric (plus acoustic + mic) but I think they dropped the electric
> input on the newer ones. Al Evans still has one, iirc.
>
Yes, the Acoustic Soloist 80 is (was) a three channel amp as described
above, and is not bad. They're available on the used market for around $400
regards-
Tim

> You could always pick up a little mixer. I use a cheap little
> behringer but I notice that Alesis now makes some mini-mixers with
> built in effects. The 4 channel's @ $100, I believe.
>
> Why 3 channels, if you don't mind my asking?
>
> Sherm
>
>


From: Lee D <mrbigaxeREMOOOV@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Three channel acoustic amps
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:07:37 -0500
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.

"Mike Cloud" wrote

> Are there any three channel acoustic amps on the market other than the AER
> Domino 2?
>
> Mike
>
>

Crate made a CA 250 for a while. It was 250 watts and had 4 x 8" speakers
and 2 x tweeters of some sort. It was basically a small PA in a single cab.
I almost bought one for $499. I still kick myself for letting that one go.
The thing sounded MUCH better than the CA125 amps. I guess the larger cab
size helped a lot.

Click the link to see one.

http://www.discountmusic.com/store/4718prod.html

Lee D

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Three channel acoustic amps
Date: 27 Sep 2003 18:47:51 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>"Mike Cloud" wrote
>
>> Are there any three channel acoustic amps on the market other than the AER
>> Domino 2?
>>

Carvin makes one....it sounded OK--not great, but utilitarian--but looking
inside, the build quality was pretty poor. Dunno how durable it'd be. My
friend bought it, and returned it; he wasn't happy.

Nothing horrible about it, just not up to snuff.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com

Hughes & Kettler Amps [2]
From: Spambow <vedauwoorocks@yahoo...>
Subject: Hughes & Kettler Amps
Date: 30 Sep 2003 11:16:06 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com

Anybody have any experience with their tube amps? How about the solid
state? I understand they have a good reputation.
--Fred


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Hughes & Kettler Amps
Date: 30 Sep 2003 19:11:34 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>Anybody have any experience with their tube amps? How about the solid
>state? I understand they have a good reputation.
>--Fred

I've had two Hughes and Kettner (note spelling of the second word) amps.

One was realy a little tube preamp called the "cream machine". Very nice for
recording, trouble free and pretty quiet. Had a little wattage in it; it wold
drive a speaker a little, but really was meant as a preamp.

My other H&K was a Backline 100. Nice little amp. Gigged with it for a time,
never had any trouble with it. Think 'tamer Marshall with more Fenderish
definition". No service issues.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com

amplifier for acoustic/electric [2]
From: Pt <Pt@home...>
Subject: Re: amplifier for acoustic/electric
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:32:27 GMT
Organization: Insight Broadband

I play electric bass and acoustic guitar.
I find that a PA power amp of at least 500 watts (bridged mono) does
the trick well.
I can use a bass preamp for the bass and an acoustic preamp for the
guitar.
I like Sonic Maximizer's instead of a preamp for acoustic.
I also used an SWR 350 chrome face bass amp head through a 4X10
cabinet w/horn and it sounded very good.

Pt


From: RAY BOYCE <raymond.spamoutboyce3@verizon...>
Subject: Re: amplifier for acoustic/electric
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 06:33:06 GMT

From my knothole, simplicity is best for most people.

I think if you're looking for a combo that is a good do-all, and not
separates/sound system (I prefer the term SR), a good keyboard amp is going
to give you the best spectrum coverage, which you'll appreciate for clarity
going from bass to acoustic. Check into the Roland KC-500, (or newer
replacement KC-550) which has 4 stereo channels (including mic) and a
15/horn out.

Your question had wisdom embedded... things that do everything tend to cost
more and rarely do anything as well as the specialized stuff. A high
quality acoustic amp (such as Ultrasound) is pretty hard to beat (price and
quality) if your need is predominantly for acoustic guitar amplification
with quiet to moderate stage volume.

IF I were looking, I'd plan on quality starting at about $400 - $500 or
dealing with some degree of introduced noise is likely.

my opinions, mileage varies, hope it helps

~ray

"Super Pissed Dad" <<visa365@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20031006082738.28295.00000481@mb-m12...>...
> Hi y'all
>
> Just curious on to what kinda of amp to buy for my
acoustic/electric...I
> am also thinking of buying an acoustic/bass can one amp suit both guitars

Best Acoustic Amp <$500? Genz-Benz? SWR? Trace? Ultrasound?
From: Ralph Glaser <usarmychaplain@earthlink...>
Subject: Best Acoustic Amp <$500? Genz-Benz? SWR? Trace? Ultrasound?
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 22:18:46 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

I used to use a Trace Acoustic TA100 and "had" to sell it last year (as it
turned out I didn't need to and now regret it - kind of). I am now looking
at buying a new acoustic amp, but don't have a lot of jack (about $500). I
have heard a lot about Genz-Benz amps, but do not have a place where I can
check them out, can anyone tell me about them, or the Shenandoah Jr. model
in particular? Are they even comparable to Trace Acoustic or SWR acoustic
amps? What would you think is the best acoustic amp for under $500 (or
regularly attainable used for that price)? I should also note it would be
handy to have two channels and the second channel focused to take a mic
(separate volumes as well).

Ralph
---------------------------------
I'm an active duty Army Chaplain
stationed at Ft. Benning, GA
(Battalion Chaplain 2/54 IN ITB)
http://www.infantry.army.mil/itb/
I'm also a Singer/Songwriter/Guitarist
("Celtic Christian Alternative Folk")
for Bio, MP3s, CD info, etc. go to:
http://www.ralphglaser.com

Best Acoustic Amp <$500? Genz-Benz? SWR? Trace? Ultrasound? [3]
From: Carlos Alden <calden3@msn...>
Subject: Re: Best Acoustic Amp <$500? Genz-Benz? SWR? Trace? Ultrasound?
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:01:41 -0700

in article a9lhb.10331$<mQ2.8047@newsread1...>, Ralph
Glaser at <usarmychaplain@earthlink...> wrote on 10/9/03 3:18 PM:

> I used to use a Trace Acoustic TA100 and "had" to sell it last year (as it
> turned out I didn't need to and now regret it - kind of). I am now looking
> at buying a new acoustic amp, but don't have a lot of jack (about $500). I
> have heard a lot about Genz-Benz amps, but do not have a place where I can
> check them out, can anyone tell me about them, or the Shenandoah Jr. model
> in particular? Are they even comparable to Trace Acoustic or SWR acoustic
> amps? What would you think is the best acoustic amp for under $500 (or
> regularly attainable used for that price)? I should also note it would be
> handy to have two channels and the second channel focused to take a mic
> (separate volumes as well).
>
> Ralph

Ralph:

I can highly recommend the Genz-Benz Shenandoah . I had one for about a
year and a half and loved it - the tone, the eq, the effects, etc. Two
channels each with a 1/4" and XLR (mic) input. Very flexible and sounded
great. I didn't have to use my preamp (Baggs Para DI) unless I was seeking
some really polished sound on my guitar.

I sold it because it was over 40 lbs. , maybe 45, and at 50 years old with
history of back problems I didn't want to be lugging that around anymore.
But the sound and flexibility were great - no doubt about it.

Carlos


From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@adelphia...>
Subject: Re: Best Acoustic Amp <$500? Genz-Benz? SWR? Trace? Ultrasound?
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:00:19 GMT

Ralph,

>I
> have heard a lot about Genz-Benz amps, but do not have a place where
I can
> check them out, can anyone tell me about them, or the Shenandoah Jr.
model
> in particular?

I sold my Marshall AS50R a while back & bought a Shenandoah from FQMS.
Mine is an older 85W model & not the new 100W one. I think they are
functionally very similar. I wrote up a "review" when I bought it &
will add it to the end of this post.

One thing has changed since I bought my GB Shen, though. Some of
Ultrasound's new combos look like they've been upgraded on the second
channel to handle vocals a little better than the originals. I haven't
used one myself, but I think if I were buying today I'd want to check
them out.

Bottom line? Very versatile, especially for guitar/vocal applications.
I really like mine.

Good luck,

Frank Wiewandt

----------------------------------------------------------------------
------

The GB Shen is a great amp IMO. I was using a Marshall AS50R & sold it
before I bought the GB. I needed (re: wanted ;-) a combo that works
well for both acoustic guitar & vocals. That seems to require a pretty
specific set of features to perform both well. The GB Shen has the
most flexible input/output capability of any of the combo amps I found
in the $500 - $650 range (more expensive ones, too).
It has 2 channels in, both with unbalanced 1/4" & balanced XLR with
phantom power. In theory you could use all 4 inputs simultaneously,
provided you have a gain control (probably from a guitar preamp) for
at least one of the sources in each channel. In a pinch, I guess this
could allow 2 performers to play/sing through just 1 amp, like a
mini-PA I suppose. More realistically, though, I think it gives the
solo performer a lot of flexability. Currently I have my guitar(s) run
into ch 1 & my vocal mic into ch 2. I suspect that's how most would
use it. I really like the ability to plug condenser mics into the amp
without needing a phantom power box inline. I really like this
feature when I use a condenser for guitar (GT AM40 or MXL1000) & a
condenser for my voice (MXL1000 for the time being) at the same time!
I'm not sure if there is another combo amp out there (at least close
to the price of the GB Shen) that will let you plug 2 mics requiring
phantom power straight into the amp without add ons. If I were greedy,
I'd want a third channel with the same capabilities so I could run
both sides of my dual source guitar PUs (or 2 guitars for that matter)
into separate channels & still have one open for vocals. WOW, that
would be somethin' special!

Each channel also has it's own active EQ. Very flexible Low, Mid (with
freq. sweep) & High. The Alesis Digital effects are assignable to
either or both channel, a feature I like that is not available on
the only other amp (Ultrasound AG50DS2) that was in the running for
me. I normally run my guitar's dual source with one PU (Fishman Rare
Earth Hummer) through DOD AcousTec, but generally like to add a bit of
reverb just to my vocals. I can do this without adding anything I may
not want into the guitar side. Important to me, at least. The only
thing better IMO would be 2 effects generators, assignable
individually or in combination, to either or both channels. Yeah, OK,
so I can dream, too!

Outputs are equally flexible. There are 2 speaker outs from the amp.
The first will generally go back to the built-in speakers & the second
can power an extension cab. At some point I'll probably get the GB
EXT12 that is designed to match the GB112. There's also the normal
Effects send/return, too with provision for a footswitch. It has the
most comprehensive DI outs that I've seen on any combo. Each of the 3
DIs (yes, that's *3* DIs) has an unbalanced 1/4" & a balanced XLR out.
There's also a ground lift switch. The first DI gives you the
combined, post-EQ signal from ch1 + ch2. This is, in effect, your
"finished" signal. I'll probably use this when the amp is used as my
monitor & the output is going to, say, the house PA. The other 2 DIs
are for each channel separately, post channel volume, but pre-EQ.
Interesting possibilities!

Of course none of this matters if the amp itself is a dog, right? I
bought mine from FQMS in Louisville, KY when I was there recently.
Even though Tony Rairden made me play virtually ALL the great
guitars they stock ;-), I had actually gone there to audition the
amps. Tony set me up with a guitar (Martin 16 series something, one of
the few he had already set up with a PU) & let me alone in the amp
room with the GB Shen, Ultrasound AG50DS, & SWR amps. I had eliminated
the SWRs mostly because of cost, & regrettably never plugged into the
California Blonde that was there. That left me with the 2 amps that
were in serious contention for my $s. The Ultras have such a great
reputation for their sound qualities that I expected to leave the
store with one in spite of it's short comings. The AG50DS (they
didn't have a DS2 in stock) really does sound wonderfully open &
natural. It's also as quiet as they say. OTOH, the GB Shen sounded
more, well, amplified if you know what I mean. It sounded very, very
good, though, more like a very clean PA. It was just as quiet as the
Ultra, too. While the amps sounded different, both were very "clean"
(whatever that means! ;-) & sounded great. I, personally, would have
been happy with either.

I made my decision to buy the GB Shen over the Ultra AG50DS2 based on
several things. First, It seemed to me like I needed to boost the gain
higher on the Ultra to get a volume that was equal to the Shen. Even
though the signal is very clean on the Ultra when it's cranked up a
bit, it seemed to me that I would need to add the 50W extension or
move up to the AG100DS2 to get similar volume levels to the 85W Shen.
Either of these solutions would have caused the Ultra's cost to rise
considerably over the GB's, even including adding the EXT12 extension
cab for a quasi apples-to-apples comparison to the AG50DS2 + AG50E.
Secondly, my goal is really to minimize my gear without sacrificing
the sound quality. I felt that if the Ultra really blew the GB away in
my estimation, I was willing to make it work. I considered using the
PAMM (or other mixer for that matter) & going with the AG50DS, AG50R
or the standard AG50 instead of the AG50DS2, & adding the other
components required for my specs if I had to. For MY purposes
though, the Ultra just didn't sound any better, a little different,
yes, better, no. (Of course, YMMV :-) For MY use with guitar ***&
vocals***, I believe a case could be made that the GB Shen actually
sounds better! If I get a chance to hook up with Jeff Sherman
sometime, I'll be able to do some A-Bing between his Ultra setup & my
GB. I'm sure a post will follow that meeting! If I was looking to
amplify an acoustic guitar only, though, the Ultra series of amps is
likely the way I would go. The added flexibility of the full-featured
Shen, without sacrificing sound quality IMO, tipped the scales for
me, with the lower cost just adding in it's favor.

Well, that's my story & I'm sticking to it! I'm very pleased with my
GB Shen & can hardly wait 'till I have my system where I want it.
Actually, I'm kinda tired of messing around with the gear & just want
to make some music when I have the time! Go figure! ;-)


From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@adelphia...>
Subject: Re: Best Acoustic Amp <$500? Genz-Benz? SWR? Trace? Ultrasound?
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:33:06 GMT

Ralph,

>I have heard a lot about Genz-Benz amps, but do not have a place
>where I can check them out, can anyone tell me about them, or the
>Shenandoah Jr. model in particular?

I sold my Marshall AS50R a while back & bought a Shenandoah from FQMS.
Mine is an older 85W model & not the new 100W one. I think they are
functionally very similar. I wrote up a "review" when I bought it &
will add it to the end of this post.

One thing has changed since I bought my GB Shen, though. Some of
Ultrasound's new combos look like they've been upgraded on the second
channel to handle vocals better than the originals. I haven't
used one myself, but I think if I were buying today I'd want to check
them out.

Bottom line? Very versatile, especially for guitar/vocal applications.
I really like mine.

Good luck,

Frank Wiewandt

----------------------------------------------------------------------
------

The GB Shen is a great amp IMO. I was using a Marshall AS50R & sold it
before I bought the GB. I needed (re: wanted ;-) a combo that works
well for both acoustic guitar & vocals. That seems to require a pretty
specific set of features to perform both well. The GB Shen has the
most flexible input/output capability of any of the combo amps I found
in the $500 - $650 range (more expensive ones, too).
It has 2 channels in, both with unbalanced 1/4" & balanced XLR with
phantom power. In theory you could use all 4 inputs simultaneously,
provided you have a gain control (probably from a guitar preamp) for
at least one of the sources in each channel. In a pinch, I guess this
could allow 2 performers to play/sing through just 1 amp, like a
mini-PA I suppose. More realistically, though, I think it gives the
solo performer a lot of flexability. Currently I have my guitar(s) run
into ch 1 & my vocal mic into ch 2. I suspect that's how most would
use it. I really like the ability to plug condenser mics into the amp
without needing a phantom power box inline. I really like this
feature when I use a condenser for guitar (GT AM40 or MXL1000) & a
condenser for my voice (MXL1000 for the time being) at the same time!
I'm not sure if there is another combo amp out there (at least close
to the price of the GB Shen) that will let you plug 2 mics requiring
phantom power straight into the amp without add ons. If I were greedy,
I'd want a third channel with the same capabilities so I could run
both sides of my dual source guitar PUs (or 2 guitars for that matter)
into separate channels & still have one open for vocals. WOW, that
would be somethin' special!

Each channel also has it's own active EQ. Very flexible Low, Mid (with
freq. sweep) & High. The Alesis Digital effects are assignable to
either or both channel, a feature I like that is not available on
the only other amp (Ultrasound AG50DS2) that was in the running for
me. I normally run my guitar's dual source with one PU (Fishman Rare
Earth Hummer) through DOD AcousTec, but generally like to add a bit of
reverb just to my vocals. I can do this without adding anything I may
not want into the guitar side. Important to me, at least. The only
thing better IMO would be 2 effects generators, assignable
individually or in combination, to either or both channels. Yeah, OK,
so I can dream, too!

Outputs are equally flexible. There are 2 speaker outs from the amp.
The first will generally go back to the built-in speakers & the second
can power an extension cab. At some point I'll probably get the GB
EXT12 that is designed to match the GB112. There's also the normal
Effects send/return, too with provision for a footswitch. It has the
most comprehensive DI outs that I've seen on any combo. Each of the 3
DIs (yes, that's *3* DIs) has an unbalanced 1/4" & a balanced XLR out.
There's also a ground lift switch. The first DI gives you the
combined, post-EQ signal from ch1 + ch2. This is, in effect, your
"finished" signal. I'll probably use this when the amp is used as my
monitor & the output is going to, say, the house PA. The other 2 DIs
are for each channel separately, post channel volume, but pre-EQ.
Interesting possibilities!

Of course none of this matters if the amp itself is a dog, right? I
bought mine from FQMS in Louisville, KY when I was there recently.
Even though Tony Rairden made me play virtually ALL the great
guitars they stock ;-), I had actually gone there to audition the
amps. Tony set me up with a guitar (Martin 16 series something, one of
the few he had already set up with a PU) & let me alone in the amp
room with the GB Shen, Ultrasound AG50DS, & SWR amps. I had eliminated
the SWRs mostly because of cost, & regrettably never plugged into the
California Blonde that was there. That left me with the 2 amps that
were in serious contention for my $s. The Ultras have such a great
reputation for their sound qualities that I expected to leave the
store with one in spite of it's short comings. The AG50DS (they
didn't have a DS2 in stock) really does sound wonderfully open &
natural. It's also as quiet as they say. OTOH, the GB Shen sounded
more, well, amplified if you know what I mean. It sounded very, very
good, though, more like a very clean PA. It was just as quiet as the
Ultra, too. While the amps sounded different, both were very "clean"
(whatever that means! ;-) & sounded great. I, personally, would have
been happy with either.

I made my decision to buy the GB Shen over the Ultra AG50DS2 based on
several things. First, It seemed to me like I needed to boost the gain
higher on the Ultra to get a volume that was equal to the Shen. Even
though the signal is very clean on the Ultra when it's cranked up a
bit, it seemed to me that I would need to add the 50W extension or
move up to the AG100DS2 to get similar volume levels to the 85W Shen.
Either of these solutions would have caused the Ultra's cost to rise
considerably over the GB's, even including adding the EXT12 extension
cab for a quasi apples-to-apples comparison to the AG50DS2 + AG50E.
Secondly, my goal is really to minimize my gear without sacrificing
the sound quality. I felt that if the Ultra really blew the GB away in
my estimation, I was willing to make it work. I considered using the
PAMM (or other mixer for that matter) & going with the AG50DS, AG50R
or the standard AG50 instead of the AG50DS2, & adding the other
components required for my specs if I had to. For MY purposes
though, the Ultra just didn't sound any better, a little different,
yes, better, no. (Of course, YMMV :-) For MY use with guitar ***&
vocals***, I believe a case could be made that the GB Shen actually
sounds better! If I get a chance to hook up with Jeff Sherman
sometime, I'll be able to do some A-Bing between his Ultra setup & my
GB. I'm sure a post will follow that meeting! If I was looking to
amplify an acoustic guitar only, though, the Ultra series of amps is
likely the way I would go. The added flexibility of the full-featured
Shen, without sacrificing sound quality IMO, tipped the scales for
me, with the lower cost just adding in it's favor.

Well, that's my story & I'm sticking to it! I'm very pleased with my
GB Shen & can hardly wait 'till I have my system where I want it.
Actually, I'm kinda tired of messing around with the gear & just want
to make some music when I have the time! Go figure! ;-)

Humming Practice Amp [6]
From: Spambow <vedauwoorocks@yahoo...>
Subject: Humming Practice Amp
Date: 14 Oct 2003 18:53:18 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com

I have a small used Fender Frontman Reverb amp. How much hum or line
noise should be normal with a small amp like this? I got it used and I
just want to make sure it's not been "abused." The noise gets
progressively louder as I increase the reverb. Is this all normal for
a solid state amp? I know most tubes will hum, but this kind of sounds
like an old radio set hum.
Thanks!
--Fred


From: Lee D <mrbigaxeREMOOOV@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Humming Practice Amp
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:51:49 -0500
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.

"Spambow" wrote
> I have a small used Fender Frontman Reverb amp. How much hum or line
> noise should be normal with a small amp like this? I got it used and I
> just want to make sure it's not been "abused." The noise gets
> progressively louder as I increase the reverb. Is this all normal for
> a solid state amp? I know most tubes will hum, but this kind of sounds
> like an old radio set hum.
> Thanks!
> --Fred

Unplugged from an instrument (and cable), it should be making extremely
little or no hum. I have a 40 watt solid state Crate amp and a 130 watt
solid state Fender amp. Neither one hums at all, even with reverb all the
way up and volume really high. It sounds like something is shorted out in
the reverb, but I'm not an electronics man. Does the hum go away when you
turn the reverb all the way down? Also, have you tried it in other places,
like in a different town, to rule out some kind of interference in your
area?

Lee D

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


From: David Enke <putw@webcoast2coast...>
Subject: Re: Humming Practice Amp
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:16:59 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

Hi Fred,
try reversing the two RCA plugs going into the reverb tank.

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

"Spambow" <<vedauwoorocks@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<29f9ab93.0310141753.1b4d5e77@posting...>...
> I have a small used Fender Frontman Reverb amp. How much hum or line
> noise should be normal with a small amp like this? I got it used and I
> just want to make sure it's not been "abused." The noise gets
> progressively louder as I increase the reverb. Is this all normal for
> a solid state amp? I know most tubes will hum, but this kind of sounds
> like an old radio set hum.
> Thanks!
> --Fred


From: Spambow <vedauwoorocks@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Humming Practice Amp
Date: 15 Oct 2003 01:53:42 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com

"David Enke" <<putw@webcoast2coast...>> wrote in message news:<vD5jb.1883$<s93.679@newsread3...>>...
> Hi Fred,
> try reversing the two RCA plugs going into the reverb tank.
>
> David Enke
> Pick-up the World
> www.pick-uptheworld.com
> <putw@webcoast2coast...>
> 719-742-5303
>
> "Spambow" <<vedauwoorocks@yahoo...>> wrote in message
> news:<29f9ab93.0310141753.1b4d5e77@posting...>...
> > I have a small used Fender Frontman Reverb amp. How much hum or line
> > noise should be normal with a small amp like this? I got it used and I
> > just want to make sure it's not been "abused." The noise gets
> > progressively louder as I increase the reverb. Is this all normal for
> > a solid state amp? I know most tubes will hum, but this kind of sounds
> > like an old radio set hum.
> > Thanks!
> > --Fred

Thanks David and Lee--No, I haven't tried reversing the RCA plugs.
This is like a buzz and it gets louder as I turn up the Reverb. The
only reason it bothers me is that I'd like to use this amp with
headphones from time to time. I just wonder if I should cut my losses
and spring for a new one--$50 more?
I would describe this as a buzz, so you guys might be right. It could
be interference from something like maybe a computer in the same room?
Anyway, it didn't sound right to me. Otherwise, the amp sounds fine.
--Fred


From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Humming Practice Amp
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:25:43 -0400

"Spambow" <<vedauwoorocks@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<29f9ab93.0310150053.1d8284ba@posting...>...
> "David Enke" <<putw@webcoast2coast...>> wrote in message
news:<vD5jb.1883$<s93.679@newsread3...>>...
> > Hi Fred,
> > try reversing the two RCA plugs going into the reverb tank.
> >
> > David Enke
> > Pick-up the World
> > www.pick-uptheworld.com
> > <putw@webcoast2coast...>
> > 719-742-5303
> >
> > "Spambow" <<vedauwoorocks@yahoo...>> wrote in message
> > news:<29f9ab93.0310141753.1b4d5e77@posting...>...
> > > I have a small used Fender Frontman Reverb amp. How much hum or line
> > > noise should be normal with a small amp like this? I got it used and I
> > > just want to make sure it's not been "abused." The noise gets
> > > progressively louder as I increase the reverb. Is this all normal for
> > > a solid state amp? I know most tubes will hum, but this kind of sounds
> > > like an old radio set hum.
> > > Thanks!
> > > --Fred
>
>
> Thanks David and Lee--No, I haven't tried reversing the RCA plugs.
> This is like a buzz and it gets louder as I turn up the Reverb. The
> only reason it bothers me is that I'd like to use this amp with
> headphones from time to time. I just wonder if I should cut my losses
> and spring for a new one--$50 more?
> I would describe this as a buzz, so you guys might be right. It could
> be interference from something like maybe a computer in the same room?
> Anyway, it didn't sound right to me. Otherwise, the amp sounds fine.
> --Fred

Hi Fred,

I have a similar problem with my amp due to the dimmer switches in my house.
My music room is right above our kitchen, which is equipped with 6 recessed
floodlight cans controlled by a dimmer switch. My AER Compact 60 amp is
quiet as a mouse unless the kitchen lights are on. Apparently, those dimmer
switches are dirty things, electrically speaking, and generate a lot of
noise. Fluorescent lights and ceiling fans can also be a problem.

Turn off all fluorescent lights, dimmer switches and ceiling fans and see if
the hum diminishes or goes away.

All the best,

Steve


From: Crestwood <juvenal@juvenal...>
Subject: Re: Humming Practice Amp
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:08:44 GMT
Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net

"Spambow" wrote...
> I have a small used Fender Frontman Reverb amp. How much hum or line
> noise should be normal with a small amp like this?

There are two possible problems here:

1. There is a fault in the reverb circuit which is causing the hum. That
should be a fairly easy repair for a tech.

2. The reverb can is acting like an antenna an picking up interference.
This is common and probably the more likely of the two situations.

Try eliminating all posible sources of RF interference - computer monitors,
TV, flourescent lights, triac dimmed incandescent lights, etc. and see if
that eliminates the hum.

If you find the hum is caused by RF interference, you can make a simple
shield by soldering a grounding lead to a piece of tin foil, sandwiching the
foil between two pieces of cardboard, then taping the whole thing to the
reverb tank, and grounding the lead. Prolly need one for each side of the
tank.

Also, clean the contacts for the reverb tank jacks and plugs - 99.9% of all
electrical problems are dirty contacts or bad ground.

Timothy Juvenal
_______________

CREEPING HORROR...

 From the depths
of time and space!
 -Invasion of the Saucer-Men, 1957

More volume from an acoustic guitar? [6]
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: More volume from an acoustic guitar?
Date: 18 Oct 2003 23:54:02 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>I have several accoustic guitas, and none of them is quite loud enough
>for the situations I'm playing in. Can anyone suggest how to get more
>volume out of an acoustic without using amplification? Do some strings
>give higher volume than others? I'm currently using 11 or 12-guage
>nickel plated strings because I like the sound.
>
>If I do have to resort to amplification, it will have to be some sort
>of battery-powered amp, because I often play in locations where
>there's no power supply easily available. Are there such things?
>
>Thanks
>
>Jack

The amplification-without-power question is easy. See:

http://www.carvin.com/cgi-bin/Isearch.exe?CFG=2&P2=S400&P1=SYS1

I have one of these. I got the optional extra battery, so there are 2 inside.
I can do any gig without power; with two batteries, I have power left after 4-5
hours.

As for acoustic volume, heavy strings plus high action equals bigger time. But
sometimes a guitar's not up to the challenge of heavier strings, and sometimes
your hands aren't up to the challenge!

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Wade Hampton Miller <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: More volume from an acoustic guitar?
Date: 19 Oct 2003 16:36:49 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Steve wrote:

>The amplification-without-power question is easy. See:
>
>http://www.carvin.com/cgi-bin/Isearch.exe?CFG=2&P2=S400&P1=SYS1

Which is a link to a battery-powered 4 channel speaker/PA unit.

How's the sound on it, Steve? Adequate, obviously, but how clear are the
vocals?

Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska

Remove the "Howdy" to reply...


From: Riddley <riddley@aol...>
Subject: Re: More volume from an acoustic guitar?
Date: 19 Oct 2003 19:54:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Walker Labs makes some nifty battery-powered equipment, I've purchased the
little PA system, and I really like it. Sometimes I put both speakers on one of
those little luggage carts (I bought it at Staples) with the mixer on top, and
just use it as an amp.

They also have a regular guitar amp, and, I think, a bass amp, also battery
powered.

Gerry Rosser


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: More volume from an acoustic guitar?
Date: 20 Oct 2003 14:33:05 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

In a message dated 10/19/2003 12:38:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, <hojo2x@aol...>
writes:

>The amplification-without-power question is easy. See:
>
>http://www.carvin.com/cgi-bin/Isearch.exe?CFG=2&P2=S400&P1=SYS1

Which is a link to a battery-powered 4 channel speaker/PA unit.

How's the sound on it, Steve? Adequate, obviously, but how clear are the
vocals?

Wade Hampton Miller>>>>>>>>>>>

Better than any other unit of its type I've tried. Better than the little
Fender Passport, the little Peavey system, etc, and WAY better than the
battery-powered Pignose, Crate Taxi, etc.

The built-in digital delay (and other effects) ae not bad; a touch on the
vocals is nice. The first channel--the only one without an XLR jack--has an
"acoustic" button that sems to crisp up the upper mids and highs and tighten
the lows; nice for acoustic guitar. It ain't my Trace TA100R for guitar tone,
but it's not bad.

I usually stand-mount the main unit and use it with a monitor wedge loaded with
the same 10" speaker-plus-horn combination as the main box, and use the wedge
as a monitor (in quiet situations, so I can hear myself) or, alternatively, as
a second FOH (in louder situations).

Nice for rooms where I need a little more than the Trace gives, alone, in terms
of power/projection or channels, and nice where I need to control the direction
of the sound a little more. For instance, seated between a dining room and a
bar, one on each side, I aim the main into the bar and set the monitor wedge on
the floor facing toward me, angled away from the dinner crowd--the diners can
still hear me, but it's louder (a lot ) inthe bar, where they really want the
volume.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: Re: More volume from an acoustic guitar?
Date: 17 Nov 2003 03:04:59 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<hojo2x@aol...> (Wade Hampton Miller) wrote:

>How's the sound on it, Steve? Adequate, obviously, but how clear are the
>vocals?
>

Wade:

Sorry for the late reply (and I'm not Steve), but I have been in and out
(mostly out) lately.

I also have one of these. I got it with out the on board effects (probably a
mistake) and with the extension speaker. The sound really isn't bad. It does
not sound as crisp as my Marshall AS50 for guitar solos, but voice sounds
pretty good.

I used to put two voices and a keyboard through the PA and use the Marshall for
guitar on a few occasions for small venues. Of course, the Carvin PA is great
for out door situations when there really isn't power available. I can get
over three hours on my single battery for a small group (under 50) situation.

Anyway, I thought it was worth the price.

FWIW

Best wishes,

Dr. Jim Lowther


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: More volume from an acoustic guitar?
Date: 17 Nov 2003 15:19:51 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Dr Jim said:

<<I used to put two voices and a keyboard through the PA and use the Marshall
for
guitar on a few occasions for small venues. Of course, the Carvin PA is great
for out door situations when there really isn't power available. I can get
over three hours on my single battery for a small group (under 50) situation.

Anyway, I thought it was worth the price.>>

I have the Carvin also (the Stage Mate). I bought the 2nd battery, and can run
a LONG time on it, even driving an external wedge as a second FOH or as a
monitor.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com

acoustic amp [3]
From: Super Pissed Dad <visa365@aol...>
Subject: acoustic amp
Date: 20 Oct 2003 00:21:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Just curious...I overheard a guy say an acoustic electric bass guitar will blow
an acoustic amp...do acoustic electric bass guitars require a special amp or
can i use the same amp for both guitars acoustic/electric and
acoustic/electric bass ?

                                       spd

From: JD <jdbnospam5025@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amp
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:38:35 GMT

Super Pissed Dad wrote:
> Just curious...I overheard a guy say an acoustic electric bass guitar
> will blow an acoustic amp...do acoustic electric bass guitars require
> a special amp or can i use the same amp for both guitars
> acoustic/electric and acoustic/electric bass ?
>
> spd

Depends. The SWR acoustic amps are essentially bass amps. Acoustic amps are
designed with a lot more headroom to keep things nice and clean much like
most bass amps are. I use an SWR bass amp for not only bass (I believe
acoustic bass guitars are a total waste of time and wood since 99% of the
time you have to plug it in anyway) but for acoustic guitar and for my
Strat driven with a POD. It works exceptionally well. A bass WILL hurt an
electric amp not designed for acoustic guitar but you should be OK playing
your ABG through an acoustic amp.

JD


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: acoustic amp
Date: 20 Oct 2003 14:36:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I've has bass guitar played through my Trace-Elliot TA100R withough ill effect.

 It's no bass amp, but did the job well enough.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com

Marshall "Acoustic Soloist" AS80R [3]
From: Al <migouel@videotron...>
Subject: Marshall "Acoustic Soloist" AS80R
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:22:20 -0400

I just bought tonight around 5 pm a used Marshall "Acoustic Soloist" AS80R
and right now I'm tweaking around with it!
I have a Larrivee L-28 with 2 pickup system a Sunrise Magnetic + a no mane
glue under the saddle piezo I always wanted a stereo amps and this if my
first amps! I usually go direct into my mixer and true my home monitor
speaker I think this is a step up and so far I'm please with the sound but I
have to learn the setting a bit more, paid $800.00 Canadian Fund for it.

Any of you guy have this amps?
And if so what are your though on it?

Alain


From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: Marshall "Acoustic Soloist" AS80R
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:31:05 GMT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com

In article <sU%kb.30502$<SH1.1057672@wagner...>>, Al
<<migouel@videotron...>> wrote:

> ...Marshall "Acoustic Soloist" ...
>
> Any of you guy have this amps?
> And if so what are your though on it?

I have one. It's a very versatile and usable combo amp. If you're doing
acoustic and vocals, it's a good solution for singing and playing
through the same amp. Very good EQ capabilities, good spring reverb and
chorus built in. There's a special control (I forget what it's called
-- "Attack", maybe) that does a good job of taming "piezo quack". It
also doubles as a good electric-guitar amp.

It's not as "hi-fi" as we tend to like amplifiers today, but it has a
very usable and pleasant sound.

                                        --Al Evans--

From: Philip & Vicoria <calholm@shaw...>
Subject: Re: Marshall "Acoustic Soloist" AS80R
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:33:32 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet

Alain, I have had a Soloist for over 8 years and am very happy with it.
I have played quite a few other acoustic amps, but still prefer the
Marshall. I run a Fishman Blender through the Acoustic channel and a Mackie
1202 mixer through the "electric" channel. I play both 6 and 12 string and
like the ability to tweek with the "attack" control and the sound shaping
capabilities is perfect for my sound. I also play banjo and autoharp, plus
vocals, which I plug into the Mackie and use the amp as a background sound
source, lining out everything to the PA.
Congrats on the new amp - it will serve you well.
Philip

"Al" <<migouel@videotron...>> wrote in message
news:sU%kb.30502$<SH1.1057672@wagner...>...
> I just bought tonight around 5 pm a used Marshall "Acoustic Soloist" AS80R
> and right now I'm tweaking around with it!
> I have a Larrivee L-28 with 2 pickup system a Sunrise Magnetic + a no mane
> glue under the saddle piezo I always wanted a stereo amps and this if my
> first amps! I usually go direct into my mixer and true my home monitor
> speaker I think this is a step up and so far I'm please with the sound but
I
> have to learn the setting a bit more, paid $800.00 Canadian Fund for it.
>
> Any of you guy have this amps?
> And if so what are your though on it?
>
> Alain
>
>

Ultrasound 100? [5]
From: walterlane <lane@walterlane...>
Subject: Ultrasound 100?
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:41:50 -0400

What's the word on the new Ultrasound 100 watt amp with the 10"
speaker. Does the 10" work well in place of two 8" speakers?

walterlane


From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound 100?
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:38:09 GMT

"walterlane" <<lane@walterlane...>> wrote in news:bncdk0$106qr9$<1@I...>
71359.news.uni-berlin.de:

> What's the word on the new Ultrasound 100 watt amp with the 10"
> speaker. Does the 10" work well in place of two 8" speakers?
>
> walterlane

I believe the Pro 100 is just half of a Pro 200. I've played the 200 with
two 10" speakers. The 10" has a coaxial, compression horn. Not a dome
tweeter or a piezo horn. It's the closest you can get to a PA and still
carry it in one hand. I think it's a definate improvement.

Steve Hawkins


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound 100?
Date: 25 Oct 2003 09:17:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Walter,

In a word, yes!! We have seen the PRO 100 exceed our expectations. There are
a variety of reasons not the least of which is all the options at the price
point.

In terms of performance I would tell you that it has the UltraSound tone. It
does not have the apparent bass that the 200 has. The reason for this is it
only has 10" of cone compared to the 16" of cone in the 200. They both share
the same size cabinet. We used the same cabinet since we needed the real
estate for the features.

Hope this helps.

The Doc


From: Glenn <hersh@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound 100?
Date: 25 Oct 2003 15:18:29 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Do the Pro 100 and/or Pro 200 both come in the new look cabinet color, or are
they both the original darker color, just curious?. Also, what are the weights
of the 100 and 200? Thank you.


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound 100?
Date: 25 Oct 2003 19:11:47 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

All of our amps now come in the new look. The 100 wieghs 40 lbs and the 200 50

The doc

General question about 2 channel amps [4]
From: James T. Kirby <kirby@udel...>
Subject: General question about 2 channel amps
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:03:46 -0500
Organization: university of delaware

Hi everyone -

In general, can the two-channel amps, with a "mic" channel with XLR input as
the second channel, be used to amplify a balanced low impedance signal coming
from something like a Baggs PADI in the second channel? I want to run the
piezo bridge from my Tele through channel 1, and my acoustic through the Baggs
PADI and then through channel 2.

Amps in question would be things like Genz Benz Shenandoah, Fender Acoustasonic
Jr., Ultrasound 50DS2, etc.

Thanks,

Jim Kirby

--
James T. Kirby
email: <kirby@udel...>
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: General question about 2 channel amps
Date: 28 Oct 2003 20:27:45 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Jim,

Call Greg at the shop at 888-993-5091 and he can answer all of your questions.

The Doc


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: General question about 2 channel amps
Date: 29 Oct 2003 01:31:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<In general, can the two-channel amps, with a "mic" channel with XLR input as
the second channel, be used to amplify a balanced low impedance signal coming
from something like a Baggs PADI in the second channel? >>

My Trace amp will do exactly that, yes.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Steve Scott <squeegybug@netspace1...>
Subject: Re: General question about 2 channel amps
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:41:35 GMT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com

<kirby@udel...> says...
> In general, can the two-channel amps, with a "mic" channel with XLR input as
> the second channel, be used to amplify a balanced low impedance signal coming
> from something like a Baggs PADI in the second channel? I want to run the
> piezo bridge from my Tele through channel 1, and my acoustic through the Baggs
> PADI and then through channel 2.

Jim,

Yes, an amp's XLR input can definitely be used for this, it's pretty
much the same as running your PADI to a mixer input channel.

Steve

Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA? [12]
From: Gordon <dansar@ptd...>
Subject: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: 30 Oct 2003 12:16:38 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

Is there a preferred way of running to the PA.
I run the guitars to a preamp/blender and then I just bought a
new Ultrasound and figure it's best to run my "blended" sound
out from the amp to the house PA. Of course I could run out from
the Preamp to the PA and the Amp but I'm just looking to see if you guys
have a preference. Thanks


From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:40:47 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Gordon" <<dansar@ptd...>> wrote in message
news:<4a35ed02.0310301216.4172f96b@posting...>...
> Is there a preferred way of running to the PA.
> I run the guitars to a preamp/blender and then I just bought a
> new Ultrasound and figure it's best to run my "blended" sound
> out from the amp to the house PA. Of course I could run out from
> the Preamp to the PA and the Amp but I'm just looking to see if you guys
> have a preference. Thanks

Pre-amp to amp to PA

Bob Dorgan


From: John Holbrook <jholbrok@NONE4MEinfinet...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:48:08 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Bob Dorgan" <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote in message
news:<vq2tq2h9aeruf9@corp...>...
>
> "Gordon" <<dansar@ptd...>> wrote in message
> news:<4a35ed02.0310301216.4172f96b@posting...>...
> > Is there a preferred way of running to the PA.
> > I run the guitars to a preamp/blender and then I just bought a
> > new Ultrasound and figure it's best to run my "blended" sound
> > out from the amp to the house PA. Of course I could run out from
> > the Preamp to the PA and the Amp but I'm just looking to see if you guys
> > have a preference. Thanks
>
> Pre-amp to amp to PA
>
> Bob Dorgan
>

Wouldn't putting the amp in the signal chain add one more possible noise
source?

John


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:30:25 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

John Holbrook wrote:
> "Bob Dorgan" <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote in message
> news:<vq2tq2h9aeruf9@corp...>...
>
>>"Gordon" <<dansar@ptd...>> wrote in message
>>news:<4a35ed02.0310301216.4172f96b@posting...>...
>>
>>>Is there a preferred way of running to the PA.
>>>I run the guitars to a preamp/blender and then I just bought a
>>>new Ultrasound and figure it's best to run my "blended" sound
>>>out from the amp to the house PA. Of course I could run out from
>>>the Preamp to the PA and the Amp but I'm just looking to see if you guys
>>>have a preference. Thanks
>>
>>Pre-amp to amp to PA
>>
>>Bob Dorgan
>>
>
>
> Wouldn't putting the amp in the signal chain add one more possible noise
> source?
>
> John
>
>

I find the UltraSound to put out a pretty clean signal.

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


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: 31 Oct 2003 15:17:08 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Preamp to PA. The less junk in between, the better.

Note that some amps slave their output to the master section of the amp,
instead of the pre section. That means if you turn up onstage, you increase
the feed gain to the FOH. Not good.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: 30 Oct 2003 21:49:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>Is there a preferred way of running to the PA.
>I run the guitars to a preamp/blender and then I just bought a
>new Ultrasound and figure it's best to run my "blended" sound
>out from the amp to the house PA. Of course I could run out from
>the Preamp to the PA and the Amp but I'm just looking to see if you guys
>have a preference. Thanks
>

Either way works, but....

If it's a pre with a good clean XLR out AND a 1/4" line out, then I'd send the
XLR out to the PA and the 1/4" out to the amp. Less chance of added noise and
"coloring" the signal that way. Plus, less chance of overdriving the board by
going from the guitar pre- (presuming you have an active pickup) to outboard
pre- to the amps pre- <breath>... get it?

Enjoy the Journey.

Mitch

Drop obvious spam filter to reply
If mail is returned then your ISP is filtered
Contact me on the NG


From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:23:44 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Mitch" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20031030164948.29876.00000010@mb-m07...>...
> >Is there a preferred way of running to the PA.
> >I run the guitars to a preamp/blender and then I just bought a
> >new Ultrasound and figure it's best to run my "blended" sound
> >out from the amp to the house PA. Of course I could run out from
> >the Preamp to the PA and the Amp but I'm just looking to see if you guys
> >have a preference. Thanks
> >
>
> Either way works, but....
>
> If it's a pre with a good clean XLR out AND a 1/4" line out, then I'd send
the
> XLR out to the PA and the 1/4" out to the amp. Less chance of added noise
and
> "coloring" the signal that way. Plus, less chance of overdriving the
board by
> going from the guitar pre- (presuming you have an active pickup) to
outboard
> pre- to the amps pre- <breath>... get it?
>
> Enjoy the Journey.
>
> Mitch

Either way will work, but the original poster asked for personal preference,
and I'd rather go to amp first.
That gives me some control over stage sound.

And, yes the amp can color the sound a bit, and that's exactly why I go to
amp first, then to PA.
I know exactly how to set my amp for the sound I'm looking for. The
Ultrasounds that I use are optimized for acoustic guitar and they're dead
quiet.
As far as potential noise from the amp, I've not experienced it. Anytime
I've had extraneous noise, it's been either:

A. a bad battery or pre-amp
B. a bad cord.

I suppose it would be possible to overdrive the pres on the PA, but I've
never experienced it.
Bob Dorgan


From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:55 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3fa26c2c.807416@news...>...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:23:44 -0500, "Bob Dorgan" <<dorgan@fltg...>>
> wrote:
>
> >Either way will work, but the original poster asked for personal
preference,
> >and I'd rather go to amp first.
>
> Do the built-in digital effects go out with it that signal? I've got
> a reverb-only model so I dunno. If this guy has the digital model
> and those are the only effects he has and he likes 'em, he might
> prefer to send that signal out to the pa, right?
>
> Sherm

Yep.
That's part of it.
Like I said, I like to control my stage tone.
Whatever a sound guy does to the house tone is out of my hands, but the
stage sound is gonna be what I want to hear.
Bob Dorgan


From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:58:57 GMT

"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3fa26c2c.807416@news...>...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:23:44 -0500, "Bob Dorgan" <<dorgan@fltg...>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Either way will work, but the original poster asked for personal
> preference,
>> >and I'd rather go to amp first.
>>
>> Do the built-in digital effects go out with it that signal? I've got
>> a reverb-only model so I dunno. If this guy has the digital model
>> and those are the only effects he has and he likes 'em, he might
>> prefer to send that signal out to the pa, right?
>>
>> Sherm

On the Ultrasound AG100D I have, you have your choice of LINE OUT or DIRECT
OUT.

The 1/4" phone jack LINE OUT is meant to drive an extension cab or another
amp. The signal is picked off after the preamp and effects so you will
hear the effects in and can control the volume of both units. This signal
is not meant for long cable runs to a PA. I suppose you could run it
through a DI box to the PA, but I'm not sure how that would sound and you'd
probably drive the sound person crazy.

The DIRECT OUT is for connecting to a PA mixing console. It's a low
impedance, XLR output. The signal is picked directly off of the INPUT
connector. It's converted from a high impedance signal to a low impedance
signal. It's like connecting your guitar directly to the PA through an
active DI box. Nothing you do on the amp affects the DIRECT OUT it
bypasses everything. The person running the mixer has total control of
your sound.

Steve Hawkins


From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: 31 Oct 2003 17:02:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Steve wrote:

>"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
>news:<3fa26c2c.807416@news...>...
>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:23:44 -0500, "Bob Dorgan" <<dorgan@fltg...>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Either way will work, but the original poster asked for personal
>> preference,
>>> >and I'd rather go to amp first.
>>>
>>> Do the built-in digital effects go out with it that signal? I've got
>>> a reverb-only model so I dunno. If this guy has the digital model
>>> and those are the only effects he has and he likes 'em, he might
>>> prefer to send that signal out to the pa, right?
>>>
>>> Sherm
>
>On the Ultrasound AG100D I have, you have your choice of LINE OUT or DIRECT
>OUT.
>
>The 1/4" phone jack LINE OUT is meant to drive an extension cab or another
>amp. The signal is picked off after the preamp and effects so you will
>hear the effects in and can control the volume of both units. This signal
>is not meant for long cable runs to a PA. I suppose you could run it
>through a DI box to the PA, but I'm not sure how that would sound and you'd
>probably drive the sound person crazy.
>
>The DIRECT OUT is for connecting to a PA mixing console. It's a low
>impedance, XLR output. The signal is picked directly off of the INPUT
>connector. It's converted from a high impedance signal to a low impedance
>signal. It's like connecting your guitar directly to the PA through an
>active DI box.

that raises your output about 20db....at least on my Ultra 50.

Nothing you do on the amp affects the DIRECT OUT it
>bypasses everything. The person running the mixer has total control of
>your sound.
>
>Steve Hawkins
>


From: Gordon <dansar@ptd...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: 31 Oct 2003 11:39:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

Thanks for all of the input folks.
With regard to Steve's post on the XLR output being pre-eq I checked
with Dan at Ultrasound and that was the case on the older models but the
new ones are post eq.


From: David Wolfe <dwolfman@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Preamp to the PA or Amp to the PA?
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 04:55:45 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

"Bob Dorgan" <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote in message
news:<vq4l2i8f4fv97e@corp...>...
>
> And, yes the amp can color the sound a bit, and that's exactly why I go to
> amp first, then to PA.
> I know exactly how to set my amp for the sound I'm looking for.

    What Bob said. I always run my guitar through the Preamp - into my
Ultrasound -
into the sound system and I have never had any problems overdriving the PA.
I spend
a lot of time of the other side of the board also and thats what I prefer
from the stage.

The player usually knows the sound they like, and they dial that in on the
amp and/or
outboard effects and that is what should also go through the sound system
(unless it
really sucks - then the sound tech can tweak it a bit).

Denver Dave

Acoustic amp or small PA [10]
From: Tom Hoffend <trhoffend@comcast...>
Subject: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 19:53:03 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online

I am considering buying an acoustic amp.
For a little more money than one would spend
on a decent acoustic amp, it is possible to set
up a small PA system with a mixer, amp (or
powered mixer) and speakers. Then you have
the versatility of a small PA, but more stuff to
lug around. Also, if I get get a stereo mixer, I
can also fart around with some home recording.

So what do folks here prefer? I'm just looking for
input from the experienced. Please help.

Thank you,

Tom


From: LarryLarry2003 <larrylarry2003@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: 01 Nov 2003 20:49:40 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Very much prefer the small PA for sound quality and versatility

Larry


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:14:55 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Tom Hoffend wrote:
> I am considering buying an acoustic amp.
> For a little more money than one would spend
> on a decent acoustic amp, it is possible to set
> up a small PA system with a mixer, amp (or
> powered mixer) and speakers. Then you have
> the versatility of a small PA, but more stuff to
> lug around. Also, if I get get a stereo mixer, I
> can also fart around with some home recording.
>
> So what do folks here prefer? I'm just looking for
> input from the experienced. Please help.
>
The moment you have two performers, a small PA is better than an amp,
because you can pan a little and keep the positional sound accurate -
and stereo FX even with one performer can be more impressive than mono,
even just plain reverbs.

However, despite having a small PA I am now using a very small AER Alpha
40 watt cube with just a mic. It may be mono, but the sound is very
clear and focused, and can be placed fairly near the performer, so that
the perspective is correct for a solo voice and guitar. In fact, when
used properly, it's almost impossible tell there is any amplification
until it is switched off.

I enjoy the convenience of being able to carry everything I need by
hand, too, and have almost zero set-up time.

David


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: 02 Nov 2003 00:22:17 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<I am considering buying an acoustic amp.
For a little more money than one would spend
on a decent acoustic amp, it is possible to set
up a small PA system with a mixer, amp (or
powered mixer) and speakers. Then you have
the versatility of a small PA, but more stuff to
lug around. Also, if I get get a stereo mixer, I
can also fart around with some home recording.

So what do folks here prefer? I'm just looking for
input from the experienced. Please help.>>

I use my acoustic amp (2 channels, will andle vocals too) and my small PA (4
channels, usually use two 10" speaker-plus-horn boxes) for different kinds of
things.

That being said, I could use the little PA for any of the gigs the acoustic amp
handles....but the reverse is not true: the acoustic amp could NOT handle all
the gigs the small PA can do just fine.

Some of this has to do with power, some has to do with number of channels, some
has to do with ability to run a speaker as a monitor, some has to do with
ability to "aim" sound more precisely....and so on.

Now, some gigs and applications are perfect for the acoustic amp, and its tone,
features and convenience are sure nice to have in those situations.

But if I had only one, I'd keep the small PA over the acoustic amp in a
hearbeat. It's far more versatile.

Hope this helps.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 12:25:31 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Tom Hoffend wrote:
> I am considering buying an acoustic amp.
> For a little more money than one would spend
> on a decent acoustic amp, it is possible to set
> up a small PA system with a mixer, amp (or
> powered mixer) and speakers. Then you have
> the versatility of a small PA, but more stuff to
> lug around. Also, if I get get a stereo mixer, I
> can also fart around with some home recording.
>
> So what do folks here prefer? I'm just looking for
> input from the experienced. Please help.
>

I've got a pair of UltraSound amps (AG50DS2, AG50E) that serve me
well for a small PA. That's an acoustic guitar amp and an
extension cabinet, each 50 watts. I put them up on speaker
stands and they work fine for me. There are two channels, a
clean voice channel and a guitar channel with digital effects

That said, if you are intended more than one person or anything
beyond one voice and one guitar, you would be better served by a
small PA system. You were concerned about carrying more things,
well I find that even with the amps, I make several trips - two
amps, two stands, two instruments, cables, mics, etc. It adds up
to at least three or four trips from the car to the stage. A PA
would add too much more.

	-Raf

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


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: 02 Nov 2003 19:24:27 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<I've got a pair of UltraSound amps (AG50DS2, AG50E) that serve me
well for a small PA. That's an acoustic guitar amp and an
extension cabinet, each 50 watts. I put them up on speaker
stands and they work fine for me. There are two channels, a
clean voice channel and a guitar channel with digital effects

That said, if you are intended more than one person or anything
beyond one voice and one guitar, you would be better served by a
small PA system. You were concerned about carrying more things,
well I find that even with the amps, I make several trips - two
amps, two stands, two instruments, cables, mics, etc. It adds up
to at least three or four trips from the car to the stage. A PA
would add too much more.

	-Raf>>
My small PA--a 4-Channel Carvin StageMate plus a monitor wedge--carries in as
easily as 2 amps, yes?

Seems like your acoustic amp setup is about the same--or more cumbersone--than
some small PAs.

My acoustic amp setup is a one-hand carry in: A trace Ta100R.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 14:07:16 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Steve wrote:
> <<I've got a pair of UltraSound amps (AG50DS2, AG50E) that serve me
> well for a small PA. That's an acoustic guitar amp and an
> extension cabinet, each 50 watts. I put them up on speaker
> stands and they work fine for me. There are two channels, a
> clean voice channel and a guitar channel with digital effects
>
> That said, if you are intended more than one person or anything
> beyond one voice and one guitar, you would be better served by a
> small PA system. You were concerned about carrying more things,
> well I find that even with the amps, I make several trips - two
> amps, two stands, two instruments, cables, mics, etc. It adds up
> to at least three or four trips from the car to the stage. A PA
> would add too much more.
>
> -Raf>>
>
> My small PA--a 4-Channel Carvin StageMate plus a monitor wedge--carries in as
> easily as 2 amps, yes?
>
> Seems like your acoustic amp setup is about the same--or more cumbersone--than
> some small PAs.
>
> My acoustic amp setup is a one-hand carry in: A trace Ta100R.
> SEFSTRAT
> solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
> band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
>

You know, I wish I could proofread my messages before I hit send.

  Parts of my message were almost in English.
I was saying that for many uses, a small PA is the best solution.

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


From: Tivers <tivers@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: 02 Nov 2003 20:58:14 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I have several amps that would make good acoustic amps. One is a one-piece PA
another is a Peavey 2-12 amp designed for PA use, another is a Rogue 100W 2 12
amp with a good EQ setup, and finally a powerful Trayno head with a Peavey 4 12
cabinet. All are for sale at reasonable prices, starting at $130 for the PA.
Highest price would be $500 for the Traynor setup--expensive shipping on this,
though.

ti
Tom Ivers
President: Equine Racing Systems, Inc.
http://www.equineracing.com
http://www.egroups.com/group/horsescience


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: 02 Nov 2003 22:19:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<<You know, I wish I could proofread my messages before I hit send.

  Parts of my message were almost in English.
I was saying that for many uses, a small PA is the best solution.

	-Raf>>>

Agreed, for sure.

I was just noting that for a solo gig, your two amps-with-stands setup seems a
lot to carry for only two chanels of use.

Of course, a little board's solve that issue, too, I guess.

BTW---saw a little 6-channel (says 8-channel, 'cause two are stereo, but we all
know it's really 6) Alesis board in a store today-FOUR mic preamps plus two
stereo channels, onboard Alesis effects, and SMALL--maybe half the size of a
Mackie 1202.

$149.

Wow.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp or small PA
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 19:26:19 -0500

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 12:25:31 -0600, misifus
<<rseibert@cox-internet...>> wrote:

>That said, if you are intended more than one person or anything
>beyond one voice and one guitar, you would be better served by a
>small PA system. You were concerned about carrying more things,
>well I find that even with the amps, I make several trips - two
>amps, two stands, two instruments, cables, mics, etc. It adds up
>to at least three or four trips from the car to the stage. A PA
>would add too much more.

I'm at 4 trips to the car with the same rig as yours, Ralph, but that
includes guitar, stool, pedal board, 30w U/S amp for monitior, and a
bag w/cables, mixer, etc. I think I could keep it to 4 trips with a
small pa though, especially if the speakers were powered. Power amp
would add a trip.

Do have your speakers stands velcro-ed or tied together? You can get
your mic stand in with those too that way --- one hand.

Sherm

Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum [25]
From: Penny <pwhite2@prodigy...>
Subject: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 4 Nov 2003 12:20:15 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

I just got an Ultrasound AG30 from Shoreline to use as a stage
monitor. The amp sounds great by itself, but I'm getting a bad
buzzing/hum when I run the DI out to the PA. The line out sounds
fine. I've tried different XLR cables, electrical outlets, guitar
cords, etc, same results. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Penny


From: John Holbrook <jholbrok@NONE4MEinfinet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:20:40 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Penny" <<pwhite2@prodigy...>> wrote in message
news:<2d73c0ec.0311041220.70916a21@posting...>...
> I just got an Ultrasound AG30 from Shoreline to use as a stage
> monitor. The amp sounds great by itself, but I'm getting a bad
> buzzing/hum when I run the DI out to the PA. The line out sounds
> fine. I've tried different XLR cables, electrical outlets, guitar
> cords, etc, same results. Any ideas?
> Thanks,
> Penny

I've experienced this same problem with my AG50-D. Sounds great by itself,
but hums when the DI is plugged into the PA.
I've checked the AC outlet, and it's A-OK. The amp and PA are on the same
power circuit. It'll be interesting to see if anyone can
find a solution to this. The PA is a recent model Yamaha 300/300 watt unit.

John


From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:11:59 GMT

<pwhite2@prodigy...> (Penny) wrote in
news:<2d73c0ec.0311041220.70916a21@posting...>:

> I just got an Ultrasound AG30 from Shoreline to use as a stage
> monitor. The amp sounds great by itself, but I'm getting a bad
> buzzing/hum when I run the DI out to the PA. The line out sounds
> fine. I've tried different XLR cables, electrical outlets, guitar
> cords, etc, same results. Any ideas?
> Thanks,
> Penny
>

Sounds like a ground loop somewhere. Are you running a preamp or some kind
of effect in front of the amp?

Steve Hawkins


From: Joe Jordan <jjordan@hotpop...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:16:01 -0600

"Steve Hawkins" wrote:

> Sounds like a ground loop somewhere. Are you running a preamp or some
kind
> of effect in front of the amp?

Like maybe a PADI? (See http://tinyurl.com/to5r.)

Joe (Been There, Done That) Jordan


From: Jonathan <letseatpaste@RATATAT_TAThotmail...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:15:22 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Penny" <<pwhite2@prodigy...>> wrote in message
news:<2d73c0ec.0311041220.70916a21@posting...>...
> I just got an Ultrasound AG30 from Shoreline to use as a stage
> monitor. The amp sounds great by itself, but I'm getting a bad
> buzzing/hum when I run the DI out to the PA. The line out sounds
> fine. I've tried different XLR cables, electrical outlets, guitar
> cords, etc, same results. Any ideas?
> Thanks,
> Penny

Me too, I always assumed there was just a grounding problem with the outlets
up at church, interesting to know others are having the same problems.
Sounds great otherwise.

Jonathan


From: David Enke <putw@webcoast2coast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 02:26:53 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

I get the same thing when I use them as stage monitors and plug 1/4"
unbalanced cords into their inputs from my Mackie board. My entire PA rig
runs off a single fully conditioned rack mount power supply, so it's not a
matter of using different (or bad) wall outlets.
I wish I could tell you how I manage to fix it, but it's not considered a
proper fix because of the possible danger of being shocked.

David (what, me worry?" Enke


From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 05 Nov 2003 02:46:10 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>I get the same thing when I use them as stage monitors and plug 1/4"
>unbalanced cords into their inputs from my Mackie board. My entire PA rig
>runs off a single fully conditioned rack mount power supply, so it's not a
>matter of using different (or bad) wall outlets.
>I wish I could tell you how I manage to fix it, but it's not considered a
>proper fix because of the possible danger of being shocked.
>
>David (what, me worry?" Enke
>

Smart man. <g>

I've had this problem in several veunues, and it's always come down to poorly
designed building circuitry. The quick fix is not recommended. The real fix
is to rerun or rewire circuitry. Older churches are notorious for this
problem, I guess cause they were not originally wired with today's sound
systems in mind. So, no Pinhead Sherman, it's not impedance this time. It's a
groundhog, uh, ground lip, er...

Never mind.

K


From: John Holbrook <jholbrok@NONE4MEinfinet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:06:46 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

>
> I've had this problem in several veunues, and it's always come down to
poorly
> designed building circuitry. The quick fix is not recommended. The real
fix
> is to rerun or rewire circuitry

That's definitely not the problem where I play. The building is only about
four years old, all the receptacles are 20 amp, (NEMA 5-20R) rather than the
usual 15 amp (NEMA 5-15R) style, and I know it has good, solid, low
impedence 20 Amp branch circuits. (I'm a journeyman electrician, and I know
whereof I speak.) It's senior citizens center, and all the electrics are
top-notch. I get hum with no preamps, effects, mixers, or other stuff in
the signal chain. Just guitar to Ultrasound amp, then XLR cable from amp's
DI to the PA. From the foregoing thread, it sounds like others have
experienced this problem too. I'm beginning to think the problem lies in
the amp's DI output's design, because turning off the amp's power switch
stops the hum in the PA immediately.

John


From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 05 Nov 2003 03:21:12 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>
>> I've had this problem in several veunues, and it's always come down to
>poorly
>> designed building circuitry. The quick fix is not recommended. The real
>fix
>> is to rerun or rewire circuitry
>
>That's definitely not the problem where I play. The building is only about
>four years old, all the receptacles are 20 amp, (NEMA 5-20R) rather than the
>usual 15 amp (NEMA 5-15R) style, and I know it has good, solid, low
>impedence 20 Amp branch circuits. (I'm a journeyman electrician, and I know
>whereof I speak.) It's senior citizens center, and all the electrics are
>top-notch. I get hum with no preamps, effects, mixers, or other stuff in
>the signal chain. Just guitar to Ultrasound amp, then XLR cable from amp's
>DI to the PA. From the foregoing thread, it sounds like others have
>experienced this problem too. I'm beginning to think the problem lies in
>the amp's DI output's design, because turning off the amp's power switch
>stops the hum in the PA immediately.
>
>John
>
>
ding ding ding ding.


From: George <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:06:43 GMT
Organization: George's Pro Sound Co.

In article <<vqgqd0s59aft6c@corp...>>,

 "John Holbrook" <jholbrok@NONE4MEinfinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've had this problem in several veunues, and it's always come down to
> poorly
> > designed building circuitry. The quick fix is not recommended. The real
> fix
> > is to rerun or rewire circuitry
>
> That's definitely not the problem where I play. The building is only about
> four years old, all the receptacles are 20 amp, (NEMA 5-20R) rather than the
> usual 15 amp (NEMA 5-15R) style, and I know it has good, solid, low
> impedence 20 Amp branch circuits. (I'm a journeyman electrician, and I know
> whereof I speak.) It's senior citizens center, and all the electrics are
> top-notch. I get hum with no preamps, effects, mixers, or other stuff in
> the signal chain. Just guitar to Ultrasound amp, then XLR cable from amp's
> DI to the PA. From the foregoing thread, it sounds like others have
> experienced this problem too. I'm beginning to think the problem lies in
> the amp's DI output's design, because turning off the amp's power switch
> stops the hum in the PA immediately.
>
> John
>
>

I would suspect the saftey ground and signal ground are combined within
the Ultrasound generally floating the signal ground will eliminate this
problem
George


From: George <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:21:57 GMT
Organization: George's Pro Sound Co.

in this thread is every thing you ever could want to know about ground
loops, equipment design and how to solve these issues

http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22pin+1%22+group:alt.audio.pro.live-soun
d&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=393EA465.7CAE52FF%40ccconline.net&rnum=1

Have fun
George


From: David Eidelberg <DavidEidelberg@msn...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:17:42 -0500

Just push in the ground lift. Oh, wait.

DOC!!!! R ya listenin?

;-)

"Penny" <<pwhite2@prodigy...>> wrote in message
news:<2d73c0ec.0311041220.70916a21@posting...>...
> I just got an Ultrasound AG30 from Shoreline to use as a stage
> monitor. The amp sounds great by itself, but I'm getting a bad
> buzzing/hum when I run the DI out to the PA. The line out sounds
> fine. I've tried different XLR cables, electrical outlets, guitar
> cords, etc, same results. Any ideas?
> Thanks,
> Penny


From: Penny <pwhite2@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 5 Nov 2003 05:48:17 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

It must be a ground loop- I tried running othe amp or the powered
mixer with a two prong adapter and it got rid of the problem. I'm not
excited about this solution! Sure would be nice if the amp had a
ground lift switch. What's the alternative?- run the amp line out
into a direct box with a ground lift? How will that affect the sound?
I got the amp to replace my (big heavy noisy) Peavy Ecoustic which
DOES have a ground lift switch!
-Penny
PS Running right from guitar- amp- DI out-powered mixer.


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 05 Nov 2003 14:36:08 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Penny,

I just spoke with Greg and he tells me he responded to your email and the issue
is resolved. Is that correct?

The Doc

And yes we will be putting a ground lift on the amps in the future. OK Dave?
8>)


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@somewhere...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:26:37 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

John Holbrook wrote:
>
> Just guitar to Ultrasound amp, then XLR cable from amp's
> DI to the PA.

Try disconnecting the shield (pin 1) at one end of the XLR cable
(probably doesn't matter which; different folks adopt different conventions
for this). If you don't want to alter the cable, a ground lift adapter
will do it (not the AC plug kind, the XLR audio kind), though a DI with
a ground lift switch might be just as cheap if you go for one of the
cheaper ones.

Peace,
Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.


From: Penny <pwhite2@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 6 Nov 2003 06:49:32 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

Greg at Ultrasound gave me the idea of using the two prong AC adapter-
and yes, it eliminated the hum, but in reading this and other threads
about ground loops, I think I'll get one of those XLR ground lifter
adapter thingys or try a direct box with a ground lieft and use the
line out from the amp.
Thanks,
Penny


From: Jonathan (ihatespam) <jonathan_kendall@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:00:05 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Penny" <<pwhite2@prodigy...>> wrote in message
news:<2d73c0ec.0311060649.5a7f4ba3@posting...>...
> Greg at Ultrasound gave me the idea of using the two prong AC adapter-
> and yes, it eliminated the hum, but in reading this and other threads
> about ground loops, I think I'll get one of those XLR ground lifter
> adapter thingys or try a direct box with a ground lieft and use the
> line out from the amp.
> Thanks,
> Penny

That's what I did when I experienced the buzz from my amp's XLR output
(direct box from 1/4" line out)... The only problem with that was that
everytime you adjust the volume on the amp, you're adjusting the level sent
to the house PA. I don't know if that's the case with the XLR out, I'm
guessing not. I think I'll be looking for an XLR ground lifter adapter, or
modifying a cable, pretty soon.

Jonathan


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:32:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Penny" <<pwhite2@prodigy...>> wrote in message
news:<2d73c0ec.0311060649.5a7f4ba3@posting...>...
> Greg at Ultrasound gave me the idea of using the two prong AC adapter-
> and yes, it eliminated the hum, but in reading this and other threads
> about ground loops, I think I'll get one of those XLR ground lifter
> adapter thingys or try a direct box with a ground lieft and use the
> line out from the amp.
> Thanks,
> Penny

Penny be sure to ground the little Tab on the adapter or you may just be
tradeing a buzz for your life
Peace
george


From: Steve Hawkins <res0pf02@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:15:46 GMT

<pwhite2@prodigy...> (Penny) wrote in
news:<2d73c0ec.0311060649.5a7f4ba3@posting...>:

> Greg at Ultrasound gave me the idea of using the two prong AC adapter-
> and yes, it eliminated the hum, but in reading this and other threads
> about ground loops, I think I'll get one of those XLR ground lifter
> adapter thingys or try a direct box with a ground lieft and use the
> line out from the amp.
> Thanks,
> Penny

hmmmm.... I'm surprised that a Tech would suggest defeating the safety
ground. It's not a good idea and it's a potential Liability problem for
the company.

Doc, you may want to bird dog this one.

Steve Hawkins


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 06 Nov 2003 16:43:12 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Hi Kids,

I have Greg sourcing an XLR Ground Lift. When we find some we will be offering
them inexpensively so the problem can be eliminated. Give me a week or so and
I'll post on this.

The Doc


From: Joe Jordan <jjordan@hotpop...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:12:08 -0600

"Ultraamps" <<ultraamps@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20031106114312.21705.00000113@mb-m22...>...
> Hi Kids,
>
> I have Greg sourcing an XLR Ground Lift. When we find some we will be
offering
> them inexpensively so the problem can be eliminated. Give me a week or so
and
> I'll post on this.

Hey Doc,

Hosa makes one. The part number is GLT-255.

http://www.hosatech.com/adaptors_index.html

Joe


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 06 Nov 2003 19:29:41 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Joe,

The trick in all of this is to private label it so I can sell it inexpensively
as a service to our customers. No MAP or anything else to worry about then.

The Doc

PS Thanks for the lead. Greg had found that but is trying to source thru our
Asia vendors.


From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 06 Nov 2003 12:51:53 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

The Doc

>And yes we will be putting a ground lift on the amps in the future. OK Dave?
>8>)

Now if the guy from Baggs would just hang out here once in awhile.


From: Penny <pwhite2@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: 6 Nov 2003 14:40:53 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

ProCo makes one called the GLX Ground Lifter - they're around $20
-Penny


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound AG-30 DI Out Hum
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:41:33 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Penny wrote:
> ProCo makes one called the GLX Ground Lifter - they're around $20
> -Penny

Hosa seems to want $13 for their GLT-255.

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

Ground Hum [7]
From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Ground Hum
Date: 10 Nov 2003 21:08:00 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Afternoon Group,

Thanks for pointing out the ground hum issue on your UltraSounds. Just
finished speaking with Greg and he has solved the problem. All amps shipped
starting tomorrow will not have this issue. The short answer is Greg figured
out how to put an auto groundlift.

Thought you would like to know and we do listen.

The Doc


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ground Hum
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:10:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Ultraamps" <<ultraamps@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20031110160800.29742.00000738@mb-m29...>...
> Afternoon Group,
>
> Thanks for pointing out the ground hum issue on your UltraSounds. Just
> finished speaking with Greg and he has solved the problem. All amps
shipped
> starting tomorrow will not have this issue. The short answer is Greg
figured
> out how to put an auto groundlift.
>
> Thought you would like to know and we do listen.
>
> The Doc

how is this done? a small voltage controlled relay that opens if it
detects voltage on the signal ground?
Inquiring minds find this intersting
george


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ground Hum
Date: 10 Nov 2003 21:52:25 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

George,

You know how engineers like to keep their magic to themselves. The only thing
I asked was there any potential for liability and was this going to impact our
prices. He said there was none so I'm satisfied.

The Doc


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Ground Hum
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:33:22 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Ultraamps wrote:
> Afternoon Group,
>
> Thanks for pointing out the ground hum issue on your UltraSounds. Just
> finished speaking with Greg and he has solved the problem. All amps shipped
> starting tomorrow will not have this issue. The short answer is Greg figured
> out how to put an auto groundlift.
>
> Thought you would like to know and we do listen.
>
> The Doc

Hmmmm, and the retrofit?

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


From: George <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ground Hum
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 05:09:11 GMT
Organization: George's Pro Sound Co.

In article <<3FB05882.3090103@cox-internet...>>,

 misifus <rseibert@cox-internet.com> wrote:
> Ultraamps wrote:
> > Afternoon Group,
> >
> > Thanks for pointing out the ground hum issue on your UltraSounds. Just
> > finished speaking with Greg and he has solved the problem. All amps
> > shipped
> > starting tomorrow will not have this issue. The short answer is Greg
> > figured
> > out how to put an auto groundlift.
> >
> > Thought you would like to know and we do listen.
> >
> > The Doc
>
> Hmmmm, and the retrofit?
>
Doc if it is a simple switching jack or some such I would do your local
mods no charge in the central NY area(you supply parts) and promise
while they wait service
George


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ground Hum
Date: 11 Nov 2003 12:45:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Let me find out what Greg did and if he wants people in the back of the amp.
Normally we do all repairs in-house.

Dan


From: George <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ground Hum
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:15:28 GMT
Organization: George's Pro Sound Co.

In article <<20031111074543.12213.00000002@mb-m26...>>,

 ultraamps@aol.com (Ultraamps) wrote:
> Let me find out what Greg did and if he wants people in the back of the amp.
> Normally we do all repairs in-house.
>
>
> Dan

if it involves modifing a circut board I think you should keep it in
house but if it is a simple mod(replacing a jack or adding a small card)
it would be a great service to you end users to not have to send it in
G

Another Ultrasound question [11]
From: Ken Buseman <kbuseman@wideopenwest...>
Subject: Another Ultrasound question
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:12:05 -0600

I have an older model Ultrasound amp with one channel, Alesis effects, 50
watts, single cabinet.

I've been trying to use my Mackie 1202 mixer to run into the amp but don't
know quite how to do it. The reason is this, I've got a new pickup on my
mandolin that has an XLR type connector. Low-high convertors don't sound
right, the best bet is to use a preamp or some type of mixer with an XLR
input. The perfect solution would be to buy a new Ultrasound amp with the
two channels, however, I'm trying to work with what I have.

Anyone know how do to this correctly?


From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:32:43 GMT

> I have an older model Ultrasound amp with one channel, Alesis
> effects, 50 watts, single cabinet.
>
> I've been trying to use my Mackie 1202 mixer to run into the
> amp but don't know quite how to do it. The reason is this, I've
> got a new pickup on my mandolin that has an XLR type
> connector. Low-high convertors don't sound right, the best bet is
> to use a preamp or some type of mixer with an XLR input.

Probably best to go from the insert on the mixer channel to the effects
return on the Ultrasound. That way you avoid routing through anything but
the preamp on the Mackie and the power amp on the Ultrasound.

 - Mike Pugh


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: 11 Nov 2003 14:25:55 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<I have an older model Ultrasound amp with one channel, Alesis effects, 50
watts, single cabinet.

I've been trying to use my Mackie 1202 mixer to run into the amp but don't
know quite how to do it. The reason is this, I've got a new pickup on my
mandolin that has an XLR type connector. Low-high convertors don't sound
right, the best bet is to use a preamp or some type of mixer with an XLR
input. The perfect solution would be to buy a new Ultrasound amp with the
two channels, however, I'm trying to work with what I have.

Anyone know how do to this correctly?>>

Use the Mackie to mix everything. Pan everything to the left, all the way.
Mix an EQ to taste.

Then just run a cord from the left output of the Mackie to the channel input of
the Ultrasound.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:28:49 GMT

> Hey Steve: Dumb question here but what's the advantage of
> panning everything to one side? I'll try it. I send only one side of
> the main outs of my little behringer to the amp and always (and
> probably wrongly) assumed ther panning wouldn't matter.

It doesn't, unless you want to use the right side for outputs to something
else.

 - Mike Pugh


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: 11 Nov 2003 16:44:29 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>Hey Steve: Dumb question here but what's the advantage of panning
>everything to one side?

Mackies employ a little device that SUPPOSEDLY keps you from losing signal as
you pan; a constant-volume thing.

Supposedly.

If I'm running mono, I run everythng mono. Why feed a side that's not being
used at all?

I can sometimes hear a difference when I pan the stuff full over.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Mitch <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: 11 Nov 2003 15:21:51 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

After this question:

> I have an older model Ultrasound amp with one channel, Alesis
> effects, 50 watts, single cabinet.
>
> I've been trying to use my Mackie 1202 mixer to run into the
> amp but don't know quite how to do it. The reason is this, I've
> got a new pickup on my mandolin that has an XLR type
> connector. Low-high convertors don't sound right, the best bet is
> to use a preamp or some type of mixer with an XLR input.

"Sparky" wrote:

>Probably best to go from the insert on the mixer channel to the effects
>return on the Ultrasound. That way you avoid routing through anything >but
the preamp on the Mackie and the power amp on the Ultrasound.

> - Mike Pugh

Assuming your just running that one instrument through the board, that would be
the cleanest signal path. Remember, running through the FX Return on the
Ultrasound, you've got to put a "Dummy Plug" in the main input or you won't get
any sound out of the amp. I use one of those 1/4" headphone adapters for this.

Enjoy the journey...

Karlo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@somewhere...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:47:54 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Sherm wrote:
>
> Hey Steve: Dumb question here but what's the advantage of panning
> everything to one side?

Sherm, a pan circuit is designed to keep constant total power to the
two channels, so that as you "move" the source around it changes
position but not loudness. This means that in its center position,
it is sending a slightly attenuated signal to both channels (so the
sound summed at your ear sounds as loud as it would if the signal
were panned full left or full right). If you pan center and use
one side, you are using a slightly attenuated signal than if you
panned fully to that side. There will consequently be a slight
degradation in S/N if you use one side while panned to the center,
but it should be so slight as to be insignificant for most purposes.

Peace,
Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: 11 Nov 2003 20:56:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<Sherm wrote:
>
> Hey Steve: Dumb question here but what's the advantage of panning
> everything to one side?

Sherm, a pan circuit is designed to keep constant total power to the
two channels, so that as you "move" the source around it changes
position but not loudness. This means that in its center position,
it is sending a slightly attenuated signal to both channels (so the
sound summed at your ear sounds as loud as it would if the signal
were panned full left or full right). If you pan center and use
one side, you are using a slightly attenuated signal than if you
panned fully to that side. There will consequently be a slight
degradation in S/N if you use one side while panned to the center,
but it should be so slight as to be insignificant for most purposes.

Peace,
Tom>>

Thanks for explaining it, Tom. I CAN hear the difference in two kinds of
environments:

1. Acoustic, very little going on. Tone is more audible, this way, somehow.

2. Full band, LOTS of signal in the buss on the board: the sound seems
noticeably better--fuller, clearer, louder--if panned all to one side (that is,
where one is only using that side!).

In the middle ae all other situations, when I can't tell the difference.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:22:39 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Sherm wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2003 14:25:55 GMT, <sefstrat@aol...> (Steve) wrote:
>
>
>>Use the Mackie to mix everything. Pan everything to the left, all the way.
>>Mix an EQ to taste.
>
>
> Hey Steve: Dumb question here but what's the advantage of panning
> everything to one side? I'll try it. I send only one side of the
> main outs of my little behringer to the amp and always (and probably
> wrongly) assumed ther panning wouldn't matter.
>

I've thought of using the same general setup, but with two
players/singers I could pan the voices to one side and send that
to the clean mic channel on the US and pan the instruments to the
other side and send it to the guitar channel with the effects.

	-Raf

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


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:24:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"misifus" <<rseibert@cox-internet...>> wrote in message
news:<3FB1996F.2050701@cox-internet...>...
> Sherm wrote:
> > On 11 Nov 2003 14:25:55 GMT, <sefstrat@aol...> (Steve) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Use the Mackie to mix everything. Pan everything to the left, all the
way.
> >>Mix an EQ to taste.
> >
> >
> > Hey Steve: Dumb question here but what's the advantage of panning
> > everything to one side? I'll try it. I send only one side of the
> > main outs of my little behringer to the amp and always (and probably
> > wrongly) assumed ther panning wouldn't matter.
>
If your running mono the center position is a combination of two signals
in order to not have the volume decrease as you pan each signal is 3dB
lower when panned center
you can gain output in a mono config if you pan all one side
This applies to "most" desks, if it applies to your RT"*"M :-)
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/10/2003


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Another Ultrasound question
Date: 12 Nov 2003 14:26:35 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<Sherm wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2003 14:25:55 GMT, <sefstrat@aol...> (Steve) wrote:
>
>
>>Use the Mackie to mix everything. Pan everything to the left, all the way.
>>Mix an EQ to taste.
>
>
> Hey Steve: Dumb question here but what's the advantage of panning
> everything to one side? I'll try it. I send only one side of the
> main outs of my little behringer to the amp and always (and probably
> wrongly) assumed ther panning wouldn't matter.
>

I've thought of using the same general setup, but with two
players/singers I could pan the voices to one side and send that
to the clean mic channel on the US and pan the instruments to the
other side and send it to the guitar channel with the effects.

	-Raf>>

That works.

So does using the ALT bus of the mixer as the second, independent mix.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com

Trace acoustic, DI installation? [6]
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Trace acoustic, DI installation?
Date: 11 Nov 2003 04:08:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I have this friend... sigh... who is kinda nuts.

He bought a Trace Elliot acoustic amp and told me that it had a direct out.
Nope.
It has a 1/4" out for an extension speaker. He was under the impression that
that would interface with a PA like a DI. I suggested that it would not, and
now he is committed to finding someone to install a low impedance DI output.

First... Can the extension output go into a mixer input? (I know.. I should
know...)

Second... Will someone actually do a low-Z, XLR DI output in a Trace acoustic
amp? What is the likelyhood and/or expense of "adding" an XLR DI output to one
of these things?

Thanks,

steveV


From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Trace acoustic, DI installation?
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 05:36:20 GMT
Organization: None

<tarbabytunes@aol...> (TarBabyTunes) wrote:

>
>I have this friend... sigh... who is kinda nuts.
>
>He bought a Trace Elliot acoustic amp and told me that it had a direct out.
>Nope.
>It has a 1/4" out for an extension speaker. He was under the impression that
>that would interface with a PA like a DI. I suggested that it would not, and
>now he is committed to finding someone to install a low impedance DI output.
>
>First... Can the extension output go into a mixer input? (I know.. I should
>know...)
>
>Second... Will someone actually do a low-Z, XLR DI output in a Trace acoustic
>amp? What is the likelyhood and/or expense of "adding" an XLR DI output to one
>of these things?
>
>Thanks,
>
>steveV

There are many DI boxes that will take the 1/4" speaker out as
input and convert it to a balanced XLR out. Perhaps that would
be his simplest solution.

Al Sato

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


From: don hindenach <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: Trace acoustic, DI installation?
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 06:11:52 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 05:36:20 UTC, <please@nospam...> wrote:

> <tarbabytunes@aol...> (TarBabyTunes) wrote:
>
> >
> >I have this friend... sigh... who is kinda nuts.
> >
> >He bought a Trace Elliot acoustic amp and told me that it had a direct out.
> >Nope.
> >It has a 1/4" out for an extension speaker. He was under the impression that
> >that would interface with a PA like a DI. I suggested that it would not, and
> >now he is committed to finding someone to install a low impedance DI output.
> >
> >First... Can the extension output go into a mixer input? (I know.. I should
> >know...)
> >
> >Second... Will someone actually do a low-Z, XLR DI output in a Trace acoustic
> >amp? What is the likelyhood and/or expense of "adding" an XLR DI output to one
> >of these things?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >steveV
>
> There are many DI boxes that will take the 1/4" speaker out as
> input and convert it to a balanced XLR out. Perhaps that would
> be his simplest solution.
>
> Al Sato
>

The Whirlwind "Director", for one

--

 -don hindenach-
donh at audiosys dot com


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Trace acoustic, DI installation?
Date: 11 Nov 2003 14:28:47 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

(email and posted)
tarbaby asked:

>He bought a Trace Elliot acoustic amp and told me that it had a direct out.
>Nope

Huh? Which model did he get? Mine has a direct out...

>It has a 1/4" out for an extension speaker. He was under the impression that
>that would interface with a PA like a DI. I suggested that it would not,
>and
>now he is committed to finding someone to install a low impedance DI output.

It'd be lots cheaper just to buy a direct box that has a provision for handling
speaker output. Lots of companies make them (Hughes and Kettner's Hot Box,
Rapco's midline direct box, etc).

>Can the extension output go into a mixer input

NO!!!!! NO!!!!!!! NO!!!!!!!

You'll fry the mixer channel.

>Second... Will someone actually do a low-Z, XLR DI output in a Trace acoustic
>amp? What is the likelyhood and/or expense of "adding" an XLR DI output to
>one
>of these things?

See above. $40 or so for the Rapco; around $90 for the Hot box.

Hope this helps.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: John Youngblood <youngblood.j@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Trace acoustic, DI installation?
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:18:24 -0800

Steve,

   At least in the case of the TA50R, the older versions (pre 2000?)had
only the 1/4" line out, while the newer ones have the 2 di outputs
(pre/post eq). I have one of the older versions and have had good luck
running the line out to a mixer as well as to a powered speaker (line
in).
   In fact, I tried it just now. Line out from the amp into the line in
of the mixer. Worked fine. That line has the effects and eq included.
You can take the Send line for an un-effected line.

Youngblood

In article <<20031111092847.28524.00000013@mb-m11...>>, Steve
<<sefstrat@aol...>> wrote:

> (email and posted)
> tarbaby asked:
>
> >He bought a Trace Elliot acoustic amp and told me that it had a direct out.
> >Nope
>
> Huh? Which model did he get? Mine has a direct out...
>
> >It has a 1/4" out for an extension speaker. He was under the impression that
> >that would interface with a PA like a DI. I suggested that it would not,
> >and
> >now he is committed to finding someone to install a low impedance DI output.
>
> It'd be lots cheaper just to buy a direct box that has a provision for
> handling
> speaker output. Lots of companies make them (Hughes and Kettner's Hot Box,
> Rapco's midline direct box, etc).
>
> >Can the extension output go into a mixer input
>
> NO!!!!! NO!!!!!!! NO!!!!!!!
>
> You'll fry the mixer channel.
>
> >Second... Will someone actually do a low-Z, XLR DI output in a Trace acoustic
> >amp? What is the likelyhood and/or expense of "adding" an XLR DI output to
> >one
> >of these things?
>
> See above. $40 or so for the Rapco; around $90 for the Hot box.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
> SEFSTRAT
> solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
> band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
>


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Trace acoustic, DI installation?
Date: 11 Nov 2003 16:45:49 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<Steve,

   At least in the case of the TA50R, the older versions (pre 2000?)had
only the 1/4" line out, >>

Yeah, but he said a SPEAKER output, not a LINE out. That's why I'm wondering.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com

UltraSound Info
From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: UltraSound Info
Date: 11 Nov 2003 13:25:57 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

There are a couple of ways to do this:
Greg replied that you can take the following approach to use your mixer:

1. You can take the output of the mixer directly into the Guitar Input.
Because of the gain of the amplifier you will need to be careful with the
Volume control setting. With a line level signal like that from a mixer, you
can overdrive the pre-amp of the guitar amplifier.

2. For a flatter response and less likelihood of overdriving the pre-amp, you
can take the output of your mixer into the EFX Return. The EFX Return is made
to handle a line level signal. (You will need to remember that you must have a
plug (dummy plug) inserted into the Guitar Input jack for this to work because
of the auto mute circuit on the Ultrasound

The Doc

Re- Trace acoustic, DI Installation? [3]
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re- Trace acoustic, DI Installation?
Date: 11 Nov 2003 21:15:09 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Hi,

Thanks to all respondents!! Very valuable comments. (I love this NG!!)

In response to constructive inquiry my distracted pal sez that his Trace
acoustic amp is a

TA70CR

I know nothing about these. It has green on it.

Thanks,

stv


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Re- Trace acoustic, DI Installation?
Date: 11 Nov 2003 21:49:02 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>In response to constructive inquiry my distracted pal sez that his Trace
>acoustic amp is a
>
>TA70CR
>

There is no speaker output on it. The 1/4" jack is a "link/DI". Just plug a
guitar cord from there into the board channel.

SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Re- Trace acoustic, DI Installation?
Date: 12 Nov 2003 14:16:12 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<There is no speaker output on it. The 1/4" jack is a "link/DI". Just plug a
guitar cord from there into the board channel. >>

What exactly does "link/DI" mean?Thanks,steveV>>

The "link" (a term Trace seems to like) is used to indicate that the output can
be used to link Trace amps together. In any event, that jack ought to feed the
main signal.

The feed will be after the preamp, before the power amp, so master volume
changes ought not affect the volume of the feed, nice when it's plugged into a
board. Chanel volume changes WILL affect the feed's volume, though.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com

OPINIONS WANTED: Peavey Ecoustic 112 Amp [4]
From: A Nengineer <stunt@polhemus...>
Subject: OPINIONS WANTED: Peavey Ecoustic 112 Amp
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:26:07 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

Local shop has a used one of these on consignment. NOTE: This is NOT the
newer 112 EFX model with all the fancy knobs and switches, but rather the
two-channel (guitar/mic) model with reverb, 5 band EQ on each channel and
lots of nice direct outs.

This one has an open-back cabinet with a single 12" speaker, 100 W amp and
comes with casters.

They were asking $399 for it, but I talked them down to $349.

Whadya think?


From: Wayne Harrison <wayno@triad...>
Subject: Re: OPINIONS WANTED: Peavey Ecoustic 112 Amp
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:27:06 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Triad

"A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message
news:jRCsb.8954$<nz.7820@newsread2...>...
> Local shop has a used one of these on consignment. NOTE: This is NOT the
> newer 112 EFX model with all the fancy knobs and switches, but rather the
> two-channel (guitar/mic) model with reverb, 5 band EQ on each channel and
> lots of nice direct outs.
>
> This one has an open-back cabinet with a single 12" speaker, 100 W amp and
> comes with casters.
>
> They were asking $399 for it, but I talked them down to $349.
>
> Whadya think?

    got one, it's very effective, and your price is ok.
wayne harrison
>
>


From: littleroots <littleroots@NOSPAMbtinternet...>
Subject: Re: OPINIONS WANTED: Peavey Ecoustic 112 Amp
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:14:15 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld

"A Nengineer" <<stunt@polhemus...>> wrote in message
news:mALsb.9210$<nz.9115@newsread2...>...
> "Wayne Harrison" <<wayno@triad...>> wrote in message
> news:uKDsb.84003$<v82.4892640@twister...>...
>
> > > They were asking $399 for it, but I talked them down to $349.
> > >
> > > Whadya think?
> >
> > got one, it's very effective, and your price is ok.
>
> Thanks. I was wondering...
>
> I assume the mic channel is pretty "flat." Would it be appropriate, in
your
> opinion, for plugging in an acoustic/electric bass? I'd really like a
> "one-box" solution for switching between git and bass.
>
I was looking for the same thing and the Peavey didn't cut it for bass. I
seem to remember the cabinet rattling a bit. Same thing with Marshalls,
Traces and a couple of others. Ended up with a California Blonde. Excellent
amp, just a touch on the heavy side though.

--
Tim

http://www.littleroots.com


From: Jay & Robin Lowe <SPAM@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: OPINIONS WANTED: Peavey Ecoustic 112 Amp
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:29:04 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

>>Whadya think?<<

I own one - without the casters but that's a great idea - because it's
heavy.

The feedback control on it works well. It has a built in pre-amp function
for the times when you don't use yours or someone forgot theirs. That works
well also. The acoustic sound is a bit far from transparent - it's not an
Ultrasound or a good PA, but it's okay. I guess you could sum up my review
by saying the amp works well. Not bad, not great, somewhere in between.

The reason I keep it around...........

the one thing it does very well is LOUD.

IT GETS REALLY LOUD.

You have to control the feedback, but when you do it can get REALLY REALLY
LOUD.

A couple of times a year I'll use it at the County Fair and another yearly
outdoor function and since there is no PA provided at either, what I need is
something REALLY REALLY LOUD.

I'll go be quiet now.

Jay

why is it?
From: Buz Busby <pick.six@verizon...>
Subject: why is it?
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:26:31 GMT

I just bought an Ultrasound 50 watt from John at Shoreline... a great
place to do business with. After getting it, I started plugging in
guitars. Man... was I surprised!

Why is it that a Takamine classical guitar(model 132 something or
another), that costs less than a grand at Sam Ash, plugged directly into
an Ultrasound amp sounds SO good when...

1) a Lowden limited edition "Pierre Bensusan" model with a B-Band AST
2) a Collings with a Seymour-Duncan MagMic(POS pickup)
3) McCollum-ized HD28 style with Baggs RT system
4) either alone or with a PADI...

sound so unlike the guitar, compared to the Takamine?

I love my guitars and think the Collings OM1 with cutaway and Adirondack
top about the best thing I've ever played or heard... and the others sound
pretty good too, at least unplugged. I only wish that I knew someone who
could get ME the sound that Takamine gets from a much cheaper guitar.

I think Takamine could make some serious $$ if they sold a stand-alone
pickup system to the public. If they do, where do I get one?

You're free to flame away now...

Buz

--
Buz Busby
<pick.six@verizon...>
<busby@tampabay...>

Acoustisonic line-out???
From: Steven Dillon <strip_this_off_laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Acoustisonic line-out???
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:18:20 -0800
Organization: Cox Communications

Hello Ed,
Yup... That's what I did on my first CD... It's adequate...
I believe my stereo Ultrasound is going to be WAY better
when I finally get it recorded!

Keep Picking,

Steven Dillon

"Ed Lowenstein" <<e.lowenstein@att...>> wrote in message
news:<b1650225.0311121335.5a4f603e@posting...>...
> I use an Fender Acoustisonic and I love the sound I get with the on
> board effects. There is no line out on this amp, and I'm wondering if
> I can use the effects out run to a tape recorder to capture the sounds
> that comes out of the amp speakers now.Thanks much
> ---> Ed

REQ: Info on Operating Your Amp
From: A Nengineer <stunt@polhemus...>
Subject: REQ: Info on Operating Your Amp
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:28:11 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

Yeah, it sounds stupid but it has been a long time since amplification was
an issue with me, and in the meantime some idjit put so many damn buttons
and gadgets on these amps that I haven't got a CLUE what they're for!

Is there anyplace online (or a paper publication) that anyone would
recommend to go for information for a total newbie, so I can figure out how
to hook these things up, use the effects, use EQ, etc.?

Fishman loudbox..GAS attack [6]
From: CDT <shag_q3@hotmail...>
Subject: Fishman loudbox..GAS attack
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:43:51 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Triad

I just got the shoreline newsletter and checked out this amp..wow...I've got
my credit card in hand and I have the shakes lol..

thoughts?

http://www.samusic.com/amplification/fishman_loudbox.shtml

http://www.fishman.com/whatsnew/displaywhatsnew.asp?whatsnew=FishmanLoudBox

http://www.fishman.com/products/manuals/Loudbox%20Owners%20Manual%20-%20online.pdf


From: CDT <shag_q3@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Fishman loudbox..GAS attack
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:42:31 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Triad

OK I have to post this..It was found by Peter Woodman over at
acousticguitar.com's gear forum:

XLR Output
Use this balanced output to route your instrument's signal to a mixing
console,
PA, etc.
This output is "post-fader" and "post-EQ", which means that all the front
panel
controls (excluding the phase switch) will affect the signal that gets to
the XLR
output.

houston, we have a problem. it needs a master gain and a DI out that's not
affected by it..


From: Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol...>
Subject: Re: Fishman loudbox..GAS attack
Date: 13 Nov 2003 22:08:54 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

CDT wrote:

>OK I have to post this..It was found by Peter Woodman over at
>acousticguitar.com's gear forum:
>
>XLR Output
>Use this balanced output to route your instrument's signal to a mixing
>console,
>PA, etc.
>This output is "post-fader" and "post-EQ", which means that all the front
>panel
>controls (excluding the phase switch) will affect the signal that gets to
>the XLR
>output.
>
>houston, we have a problem. it needs a master gain and a DI out that's not
>affected by it..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>OK I have to post this..It was found by Peter Woodman over at
>acousticguitar.com's gear forum:
>
>XLR Output
>Use this balanced output to route your instrument's signal to a mixing
>console,
>PA, etc.
>This output is "post-fader" and "post-EQ", which means that all the front
>panel
>controls (excluding the phase switch) will affect the signal that gets to
>the XLR
>output.
>
>houston, we have a problem. it needs a master gain and a DI out that's not
>affected by it..
>

Yeah but that's how their Fishman Pro Performer Amp is isn't it? Guys I know
use the front end of that amp as a blender so they don't mind sending that down
the line.


From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Fishman loudbox..GAS attack
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:24:26 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"CDT" <<shag_q3@hotmail...>> wrote in
news:X9Rsb.123612$<IA2.4490180@twister...>:

> I just got the shoreline newsletter and checked out this
> amp..wow...I've got my credit card in hand and I have the shakes lol..
>
> thoughts?
>
> http://www.samusic.com/amplification/fishman_loudbox.shtml
>
> http://www.fishman.com/whatsnew/displaywhatsnew.asp?
whatsnew=FishmanLou
> dBox
>
> http://www.fishman.com/products/manuals/Loudbox%20Owners%20Manual%20-%
2
> 0online.pdf

I can't comment on the sound quality without hearing one, but here are a
couple of observations based on the specs:

I like the tri-amp approach. That's one reason I'm using a pair of
Mackie SRM450's (bi-amped) in my current rig. You get a tight bass, and
clear mids and highs. I've never heard an "acoustic amp" that could
compete with the SRM450's. Maybe this will be the first one to do that.

I don't like the weight on this new Fishman amp. The initial 250 watt
model weighs 55.5 lbs, which is 4.5 lbs. heavier than a Mackie SR450.
The bi-amped SRM450 has a larger low-end driver (12") and a lot more
amp power (300+100 watts).

There is a larger 500w fishman amp due out later in the year with a 12"
low driver and 500 watts, which might be more closely matched to the
Mackie SRM450 powered cab. But what will that weigh? I quit using my
Rivera Sedona tube acoustic-electric amp several years ago, because it
was too heavy (65 lbs.)

If this new amp sounds fantastic, the weight might be worth it. Take
this message with a grain of salt because I'm always suspicious until I
hear something in person, or read some credible user reports. I'm a
curmudgeon by nature. Somebody here, go buy one and report on it!

--
Mike Barrs


From: CDT <shag_q3@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Fishman loudbox..GAS attack
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:12:58 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Triad

I just spoke with John at Shoreline..he just got these in.

He said the amp was really, really loud. sounds like it is a beast of an amp
from what he said..I was an electric bassist for years so heavy gear is a
norm for me...

To hit the price point fishman poured everything into the speakers and
tri-amped system. so no frills (DI options and a 2nd channel). the 500w will
be more $$ and more feature rich.

at 11'oclock it rattled the windows (which has never happend with an
acoustic amp he's used)...

He said the tone was great, not quite as natural as the ultrasound 100 for
one of his test guitars (with a putw #27), but that with his rick turner
guitar it sounded amazing. I personally did not like the ultrasound I tried
recently (the 200w version)..but I hear the 100 is actually better...so I
have no point of reference on the tone personally.

The dynamic range at high volume was what seemed to impress him the most. in
fact the dynamic range seemed to be the best feature. I'm thinking it's
similar to the powered JBL and Mackie speakers in that regard. just
speculation on my part though...

He's going to play around with it some more since it's so new, I guess with
some different guitars..

maybe he'll do a review...:)

I'm waiting until the 500w comes out to compare it...

"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote in message
news:<Xns9432927F39ACCmbarrsNOSPAMnightvie@216...>...
> "CDT" <<shag_q3@hotmail...>> wrote in
> news:X9Rsb.123612$<IA2.4490180@twister...>:
>
> > I just got the shoreline newsletter and checked out this
> > amp..wow...I've got my credit card in hand and I have the shakes lol..
> >
> > thoughts?
> >
> > http://www.samusic.com/amplification/fishman_loudbox.shtml
> >
> > http://www.fishman.com/whatsnew/displaywhatsnew.asp?
> whatsnew=FishmanLou
> > dBox
> >
> > http://www.fishman.com/products/manuals/Loudbox%20Owners%20Manual%20-%
> 2
> > 0online.pdf
>
> I can't comment on the sound quality without hearing one, but here are a
> couple of observations based on the specs:
>
> I like the tri-amp approach. That's one reason I'm using a pair of
> Mackie SRM450's (bi-amped) in my current rig. You get a tight bass, and
> clear mids and highs. I've never heard an "acoustic amp" that could
> compete with the SRM450's. Maybe this will be the first one to do that.
>
> I don't like the weight on this new Fishman amp. The initial 250 watt
> model weighs 55.5 lbs, which is 4.5 lbs. heavier than a Mackie SR450.
> The bi-amped SRM450 has a larger low-end driver (12") and a lot more
> amp power (300+100 watts).
>
> There is a larger 500w fishman amp due out later in the year with a 12"
> low driver and 500 watts, which might be more closely matched to the
> Mackie SRM450 powered cab. But what will that weigh? I quit using my
> Rivera Sedona tube acoustic-electric amp several years ago, because it
> was too heavy (65 lbs.)
>
> If this new amp sounds fantastic, the weight might be worth it. Take
> this message with a grain of salt because I'm always suspicious until I
> hear something in person, or read some credible user reports. I'm a
> curmudgeon by nature. Somebody here, go buy one and report on it!
>
> --
> Mike Barrs


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@somewhere...>
Subject: Re: Fishman loudbox..GAS attack
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:12:32 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

"After a brief hiatus, Fishman has re-entered the amp business..."

That was funny! How long has it been since their Acoustic Performer Pro
was in production? One of Fishman's reps told me in Spring 2000 that
their new amp was "about to be released." Over three years later....

That said, it looks like a very cool product on paper, particularly
the industrial design (how nicely it can be used as a monitor wedge).
A spring reverb sounds like a peculiar choice for acoustic guitar to
me, though. The pro unit has a digital 'verb and an XLR input with
phantom power, and looks a lot more attractive---except for the price.

Chris, thanks for the heads-up on the (at last) availability of these
(well, at least of the single-channel; the pro model is further delayed).

Peace,
Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.

Genz Benz Shenandoah v. SWR California Blonde [3]
From: Lee D <mrbigaxeREMOOOV@yahoo...>
Subject: Genz Benz Shenandoah v. SWR California Blonde
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:08:10 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Has anyone in here gone through an A/B comparison with these two ($200
apart, iirc)? Or does anyone have much to say about either? Anyone messed
with a Shenandoah 200 yet?

Some time back I had tried a smaller Genz Benz and was totally underwhelmed.
I had written them off as thin and reedy (sorry, I couldn't help it), or
box, really, is a better term. Recently, a friend of mine bought a
Shenandoah 100 and I really like it. It seems to have a lot of useful
features, sounds good by itself, and sounds great going into the PA.

I really haven't heard very much about the SWRs at all (translation: I
haven't been paying attention). I guess I could do a google search to learn
a bit about them, but then it would probably serve me better to just go play
one at my local music store. Then again, time is pretty limited until right
before Christmas for me. I DON'T want to go to the music store then.

Thanks in advance.

Lee D


From: Ralph Glaser <usarmychaplain@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Genz Benz Shenandoah v. SWR California Blonde
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:15:28 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

Hi Lee,

    I don't know a lot about the SWR, but I used to have a Trace Acoustic
TR100 and recently bought a Genz-Benz Shenandoah 100. I really liked my
Trace a lot and I regreted selling it when I did. When it was time to get
another amp I didn't have the money to get another Trace, so I looked around
at other options. I read a ton of reviews and asked around comparing the
Trace 50, SWR Strawberry Blonde, and the Genz-Benz. I ended up leaning
towards the Genz-Benz for sound, usability (options-being able to use as
vocal and guitar), and the Alesis digital effects were a nice bonus. I
caught a deal on a new one for $400 and that was it. I've been using it for
about two months now and absolutely love it! I do find it sounds better on
an amp stand (I bought an Adam adjustable for about $40) raised of the
floor.
cheers,
Ralph
---------------------------------
I'm an active duty Army Chaplain
stationed at Ft. Benning, GA
(Battalion Chaplain 2/54 IN ITB)
http://www.infantry.army.mil/itb/
I'm also a Singer/Songwriter/Guitarist
("Celtic Christian Alternative Folk")
for Bio, MP3s, CD info, etc. go to:
http://www.ralphglaser.com

"Lee D" <<mrbigaxeREMOOOV@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<vrb2khp3lu7hc7@corp...>...
> Has anyone in here gone through an A/B comparison with these two ($200
> apart, iirc)? Or does anyone have much to say about either? Anyone
messed
> with a Shenandoah 200 yet?
>
> Some time back I had tried a smaller Genz Benz and was totally
underwhelmed.
> I had written them off as thin and reedy (sorry, I couldn't help it), or
> box, really, is a better term. Recently, a friend of mine bought a
> Shenandoah 100 and I really like it. It seems to have a lot of useful
> features, sounds good by itself, and sounds great going into the PA.
>
> I really haven't heard very much about the SWRs at all (translation: I
> haven't been paying attention). I guess I could do a google search to
learn
> a bit about them, but then it would probably serve me better to just go
play
> one at my local music store. Then again, time is pretty limited until
right
> before Christmas for me. I DON'T want to go to the music store then.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Lee D
>
>


From: Lee D <mrbigaxeREMOOOV@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Genz Benz Shenandoah v. SWR California Blonde
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:00:50 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Thanks Ralph.

I'm feeling better and better all the time about the Genz Benz products.

I'm leaning toward a Genz Benz UC5 112T right now. Its a 200w, 5 channel
acoustic guitar amp - keyboard amp - small PA thing (with the Alesis chip).
It weighs 57 pounds, but I wouldn't have to move it very often. It also has
a speaker stand mount.

I think it might have the versatility that I want. What I'm looking for is
an strong acoustic amp that will also sound good if I run an electric guitar
(with an effects pedal/preamp) through it on another channel, with the
chance for a mic now and then. I also need a direct out (a good reason for
liking Genz Benz) because I will need to go to a board also.

The trouble is finding one to try out. None of the music stores around here
have one, but could possibly special order one for me. I guess I could
always order one online and send it back if it doesn't do what I want, but I
really don't like to do that sort of thing.

Lee D

Genz Benz UC5 112T
From: Lee D <mrbigaxeREMOOOV@yahoo...>
Subject: Genz Benz UC5 112T
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:08:48 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Anyone ever heard one in action? It's a 5 channel, acoustic guitar
amp/keyboard amp/small PA thing with a 12" speaker, compression tweeter, and
Alesis DSP effects chip with 200w that runs around $739. It might just be a
versatile enough fix for me.

Anyone seen anything similar out there at a similar price?

Lee D

Bose L1? [3]
From: Mike Cloud <clouds@nospamkiva...>
Subject: Bose L1?
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:52:38 -0500
Organization: Kiva Networking

Has anyone tried the new Bose L1 amplification system? I've heard bad
things about other Bose products. Is the new system just hype?

Mike


From: David Drucker <dad@3e...>
Subject: Re: Bose L1?
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:30:52 GMT
Organization: Road Runner

I agree with you 99 percent about Bose hype, but once in a while the company
comes up with something real. The Quiet Comfort noise cancelling headphones
work exactly as advertised, and have made many a long flight bearable. (And
they're even more useful on the much noisier commuter flights.) I won't
leave the ground without 'em!

dd

"don hindenach" <<bounce.spam@driveway...>> wrote in message
news:ZGh26eEmFvyP-pn2->
> ahem
>
> EVERYTHING Bose is hype
>
> you been told :->
>
> --
> -don hindenach-
> donh at audiosys dot com


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@somewhere...>
Subject: Re: Bose L1?
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:17:43 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

I've heard good reports on this from an audio engineer who heard an
early demo and was surprised at how much he liked it (I won't name
him but he's known and respected here). It's such a different way
of doing things that I don't know what to think of it without hearing
it myself. I'm looking forward to reports from the trenches....

Peace,
Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.

Acoustic amp question [6]
From: Byron Oost <ironbyron@bellsouth...>
Subject: Acoustic amp question
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:47:58 -0600

Anyone have any knowledge of the Roland AC-60 Acoustic amp, or the Fender
SFX? Both of these have 2 separate channels and sound powerful enough to do
a coffee shop type gig.
How about any acoustic amps in general. The 2 I named are set up to allow a
mic/instrument in one channel and an instrument in the other. I am told they
do a decent job. Am I being misled.
After being a drummer/singer for 27 years I've quit the drumming and the
full tilt band thing as well. I am toying with the idea of doing some coffee
house type work with one other person and have never played the guitar
through an amp. I have run many PA systems but the only guitar work I have
done has been strictly acoustic. I actually quit drumming about 6 years ago
and have taken up the guitar since (on and off for the last 6 years) then. I
still have some work to do before I think of taking on any gigs. But I'm
thinking I might ought to start getting familiar with playing through an amp
some now.

Thanks in advance for any advice,
ironbyron in Owensboro, KY


From: William D Clinger <cesuraSPAM@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp question
Date: 20 Nov 2003 06:30:12 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

Byron Oost wrote:
> How about any acoustic amps in general.

Sounds like you're gonna want an Ultrasound AG50DS2.

Will


From: Steinberger <dontwanna@beknown...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp question
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:06:16 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico

Its a question of degrees. In a pinch, a good acoustic amp can be used in a
small venue like a coffee shop or house party. Using a guitar amp for both
guitar and vocal is never a great solution, but if you use the amp's volume
judiciously (just loud enough to be heard), as well as the EQ, you can get
acceptible results.

For me, a PA solution always sounds better. There are lots of inexpensive
portable PA "kits" on the market. Two PA speakers, a powered mixer and
maybe some reverb will give you a much cleaner, more natural sound. I've
seen these rigs as cheap as $500.00 (rivalling the cost of the acoustic amps
that you mentioned).

Just my opinion.

S

"Byron Oost" <<ironbyron@bellsouth...>> wrote in message
news:8DXub.12788$<ow5.10777@bignews2...>...
> Anyone have any knowledge of the Roland AC-60 Acoustic amp, or the Fender
> SFX? Both of these have 2 separate channels and sound powerful enough to
do
> a coffee shop type gig.
> How about any acoustic amps in general. The 2 I named are set up to allow
a
> mic/instrument in one channel and an instrument in the other. I am told
they
> do a decent job. Am I being misled.
> After being a drummer/singer for 27 years I've quit the drumming and the
> full tilt band thing as well. I am toying with the idea of doing some
coffee
> house type work with one other person and have never played the guitar
> through an amp. I have run many PA systems but the only guitar work I have
> done has been strictly acoustic. I actually quit drumming about 6 years
ago
> and have taken up the guitar since (on and off for the last 6 years) then.
I
> still have some work to do before I think of taking on any gigs. But I'm
> thinking I might ought to start getting familiar with playing through an
amp
> some now.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice,
> ironbyron in Owensboro, KY
>
>


From: Ed Maier <takethisout_evmaier@sbcglobal...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp question
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:37:02 -0600
Organization: stawbewwy fields fowever

Byron Oost wrote:
> Do you have a link for ultrasound? I searched and found sites selling them,
> but I would like to see the manufacturers website.
>
> thanks,
> ironbyron in Owensboro, KY
>

Try <http://www.ultrasoundamps.com/thebuzz_8.html>

evm


From: Byron Oost <ironbyron@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp question
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:00:19 -0600

Sounds like sage advice. I am drawn towards the simplicity of the Acoustic
amps. The ones I have asked about are designed for both instrument and
vocals.
I really hadn't thought about the PA kits. It seems to me though that using
a PA kit, you are right back to having instrument and vocals coming from the
same unit.

Thanks for giving me something else to consider though.

ironbyron in Owensboro, KY

"Steinberger" <<dontwanna@beknown...>> wrote in message
Using a guitar amp for both
> guitar and vocal is never a great solution,

"mucho snippage"

There are lots of inexpensive
> portable PA "kits" on the market.


From: Steve Scott <squeegybug@netspace1...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic amp question
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:40:19 GMT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com

<ironbyron@bellsouth...> says...
> Anyone have any knowledge of the Roland AC-60 Acoustic amp, or the Fender
> SFX? Both of these have 2 separate channels and sound powerful enough to do
> a coffee shop type gig.
> How about any acoustic amps in general. The 2 I named are set up to allow a
> mic/instrument in one channel and an instrument in the other. I am told they
> do a decent job. Am I being misled.

I had an Acoustasonic SFX, I've since sold it and went with a PA when I
started doing a duo with 2 vocals and 2 instruments. The SFX is pretty
cool, there's nothing else like it with its particular sound effects.
The SFX processor, as you may know, provides a "reflected" 3D sound via a
separate side-firing speaker. This technique and the actual processor
was developed and patented by Aspen Pittman of Groove Tubes, and licensed
by Fender for these amps. The amp of course has Fender's great standard
effects -- chorus, reverb, delay, and combinations thereof. Vocal and
instrument are indeed on separate channels and the amount of processing
can be varied independently, but separate simultaneous effects are not
possible.

The SFX has an effective feedback notch, and an excellent "String
dynamics" compressor to moderate piezo harshness. I felt the amp was
biased to work best with UST piezo pickups; I never cared much for it
with magnetics or SBTs. I can't say it's the most "acoustic" sounding
amp (oxymoron), but it's powerful enough for coffeehouse/small bar shows,
we used it for that several times.

Has Fender support and quality, five-year transferrable warranty; these
were fairly important to me at the time. The new SFX-II has independent
effects control I believe, and is a little smaller. The original SFX is
pretty beefy, weighs about 62 lb. They're going pretty cheap lately on
eBay if you're interested in that approach. Good luck,

Steve

New type of PA system!!!
From: Steve Scott <squeegybug@netspace1...>
Subject: Re: New type of PA system!!!
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:29:01 GMT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com

> > Hi folk
> > first let me say I am not selling this, nor have I heard it
> > also I have though very little of other Bose products I have heard
> > but to keep you well informed I offer up
> > a break thru design from bose that I feel "could" have a real impact on the
> > acoustic guitarist and his search for a good, light, easily portable , full
> > coverage type system
> > retail is 1700.00$
> > please see this months MIX magazine(dec 2003), article starts page 26
> > or go to www.mixonline.com and look for
> > "the doctor is in the house"
> >
> > this is nothing short of a revolution in how sound can be made
> > Thanks
> > George

Well, I've had one here for a week. No full review yet, but here's some
general takes:

My system is a single L1 "cylindrical radiator" and a single unpowered
bass module, $1999 total. The power amps are in the base, the tower is
in two pieces and just slips into place. The tower/base system is pretty
heavy (65 lbs or so), but broken down the heaviest unit (base) is about
35 lbs I think. Sub is about 25 lb or so. Only one short Speakon cable
from base to sub, and only a single power cord from base to power outlet.

It is a line array, of sorts -- up close the sound is coming from
individual 2.5" speakers -- farther away amplitudes are increasingly
boosted via constructive interference of all 24 2.5" speakers. The sound
intensity decreases as 1/r, rather than 1/r^2 as in a traditional
cone/horn cabinet, and vertical dispersion is minimal. I'm not familiar
enough with these designs to comment on the mathematics, but that's the
general idea of how it can project farther than a standard speaker
system.

You can indeed use a mic close to it with less feedback than std.
speaker, however it will definitely feed back. I've tried at 3' and had
problems, need to be at least 4-5' away. We're using with a duo, the
tower behind and between us.

4 inputs -- Channels 1 and 2 are combo XLR-1/4" jacks with mic preamps
(only 24 v phantom), channels 3 and 4 are 1/4" line inputs. Trim
controls on all channels on the base. Channel volume and 3-band tone
control for channels 1 and 2, none for channels 3 and 4 on the wired
remote. Master volume on the remote.

The Bose approach was to model popular mics and "generic" pickups and
program selectable presets into the two preamp channels. These are
selectable on the base unit, not very easy to do quick comparisons.
Vocal mics are SM57 and 58, Beta 57 and 58, Audix OM5, and EV 357. There
are also presets for acoustic and electric guitar, plus lots of other
instruments, including bass, drums, keyboards, etc. Guitar presets are:
generic piezo, piezo with soundhole mic, AKG 451, SM57, and Taylor 810
with ES! I'm sure the intention is to add models as they go.

Keep in mind I've just had a short time with the system, my opinions will
likely change as I get some more experience with it, but I wanted to
check it out without a lot of tweaking to see how it acted "out of the
box".

Vocals sound compressed, and maybe a little "hollow", but not terrible.
They actually sound better farther away. The sound is indeed
nondirectional and even over a wide range, maybe even the claimed 180
degrees. The preprogrammed models are very EQ'ed and absolutely
necessary to get decent tone, going in flat doesn't work well. I've used
with Shure Beta 87A using all the models (EV 357 worked best for this
mic) -- this is not "by the book". I'll try with 57s and 58s using the
actual presets later. There are no doubt lots of tweaks in these
programs to even out the response -- I think I can detect gates and
limiters as well.

I tried vocals through a small Behringer mixer using its EQ plus the mic
model -- yuck, that doesn't work. I tried _very_ briefly with Pendulum
SPS-1 as mic preamp/mixer, much better possibilities. Sound is fairly
dry, no onboard effects.

Guitar was Gibson SJ200 with three separate pickups: Sunrise, Baggs
Element Active, and Trance Audio Acoustic Lens. Sunrise works pretty
well using the ES model. Don't really have enough time into it to offer
much yet. Dynamics are good, can play a wide range of sound. Tone is
decent, but not really acoustic using these pickups -- Acoustic lens was
the best for this so far. It's most likely possible to get a good tone
using pickups, will take some tweaking I think. I'm going to try running
through some blenders and outboard EQ. I very briefly tried with an
AT4033 mic on the guitar, as long as I was between the mic and column it
definitely could hear the mic with less feedback than a standard monitor
system.

My singing partner and I agree the sound, especially vocals, leaves
something to be desired so far -- the consensus is it sounds more like a
recording of us than the live sound we're used to from the DP1000/SLS
8190 combo we've been using. I admit, this is some stiff competition, I
haven't heard anything to approach the SLS sound, so I may be a tougher
sell than some...

But of course it does offer some real promise, and some compromise may be
necessary for the convenience. I can see where a band who isn't used to
being able to hear each other would like this approach over isolated
monitors. It will play loud, if you're careful with mic choice,
placement, and technique, and I believe it would certainly fare well if
all you're used to is standalone amps.

Sorry I can't offer more actual sound opinions yet -- yes I know, I've
had it a week, but we had to finish a home remodeling project in time for
Thanksgiving, so music got delayed a while.

You can read the Bose forum here, it's pretty active, but monitored
closely by Bose employees, and seems pretty "marketed":
http://bose.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=8206048934

Regards,

Steve

OK, Who Has A Behringer ACX1000? [4]
From: Lee D <mrbigaxeREMOOOV@yahoo...>
Subject: OK, Who Has A Behringer ACX1000?
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:54:33 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

So, what do you do when you urgently need acoustic amplification and can not
afford to lay the money down on an Utrasound Pro 200 or a Shenandoah 200?
You look at cheaper amps!

The Behringer ACX1000 looks like a good deal for the money and the bells and
whistles are nice, but does anyone have and complaints about this amp?

I did a google search, but hopefully someone will give me an update if their
opinions have changed with use.

Lee D


From: CDT <shag_q3@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: OK, Who Has A Behringer ACX1000?
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:09:14 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Triad

My friend has one, he's more of a drummer and plays acoustic sometimes.

It is very noisy. hisses like an electric amp with the effects on or off.
The Behringer has more wattage, but my friend and I both agree that my
marshall as50r blows it away in terms of tone and quietness.

and the effects are so-so.. If you're in a loud band it'll work fine..if
you're solo then look elsewhere. imho, ymmv.

peace,

Chris

"Lee D" <<mrbigaxeREMOOOV@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<vsnl60c6te9vdb@corp...>...
> So, what do you do when you urgently need acoustic amplification and can
not
> afford to lay the money down on an Utrasound Pro 200 or a Shenandoah 200?
> You look at cheaper amps!
>
> The Behringer ACX1000 looks like a good deal for the money and the bells
and
> whistles are nice, but does anyone have and complaints about this amp?
>
> I did a google search, but hopefully someone will give me an update if
their
> opinions have changed with use.
>
> Lee D
>
>


From: DownTownBlues <double_reeds@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: OK, Who Has A Behringer ACX1000?
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:42:29 GMT
Organization: Optimum Online

On the plus side:

Cheap, looks good, loud enough for small venues. Travels well.

On the minus side:

Noisy, noticable delay when switching fx, poor quality control (You
may have to go thru a few to find one that's nicotine-free.)

Ted

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:54:33 -0600, "Lee D" <<mrbigaxeREMOOOV@yahoo...>>
wrote:

>So, what do you do when you urgently need acoustic amplification and can not
>afford to lay the money down on an Utrasound Pro 200 or a Shenandoah 200?
>You look at cheaper amps!
>
>The Behringer ACX1000 looks like a good deal for the money and the bells and
>whistles are nice, but does anyone have and complaints about this amp?
>
>I did a google search, but hopefully someone will give me an update if their
>opinions have changed with use.
>
>Lee D
>


From: CDT <shag_q3@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: OK, Who Has A Behringer ACX1000?
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:23:13 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Triad

> On the plus side:
>
> Cheap, looks good, loud enough for small venues. Travels well.
>
> On the minus side:
>
> Noisy, noticable delay when switching fx, poor quality control (You
> may have to go thru a few to find one that's nicotine-free.)
>
> Ted

Ted is right..

you'll get what you pay for imho... my friend has one and it is noisy
(hisses with the effects on or off)..behringer tried to stuff too many
features and they're all cheap..the effects are god-awful imho..if you want
an amp to use with a loud band then go for it..it does have some volume..

Bose Cylindrical Radiator-- a report [2]
From: JohnS16545 <johns16545@aol...>
Subject: Bose Cylindrical Radiator-- a report
Date: 04 Dec 2003 20:42:02 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Today I made the trip to our local GC and got a chance to try out the much-
trumpeted cylindrical radiator system with an acoustic guitar. I was able to do
so without a hard sales pitch or the exacting demonstration requirements others
have talked about (the person showing me the system used to manage at the store
out of which I teach). My impressions were generally pretty favorable.

The system was roughly in the middle of a 20'x20' room mostly given over to
mixers and cabinets, pretty cluttered. I was using a Taylor 514C; same type as
the one I own, but outfitted with the ES electronics, and it was plugged
directly into the base (no presets active). I've only used the ES system once
before, thru headphones. The character of the sound out of the cylindrical
array was quite similar to what I remember but, of course, much louder; a very
rich and balanced tone and somewhat "maggy" or electric sounding. Initially the
bass box was hooked up, and one could get a very overpowering bass with no boom
or howl-- I was interested to see if an acoustic guitar could get by without
the bass box though, and tried it that way too. It required some positive bass
boost, but I was able to get an entirely satisfactory bottom end in uncapoed
DADGAD tuning.

I got as far away as I could (about 10 feet) and continued to play-- this was
still "near field" of course, as these things are reckoned, so I still don't
have a sense of how well this system would cover a large or noisy room, but I
was able to get a large, immediate, full fidelity sound that filled this small
one. There was little or no hiss; it seemed quieter than most conventional PAs
I've experienced, but that's just an impression.

With the ES signal, the system was quite feedback resistant. I held the guitar
up, sound hole facing the radiator, and marched toward it-- it finally began to
hum ( a 110 hz A I believe) about 18 inches out. It's still a open question to
me how well-behaved it would be with a mic-ed system.

I look forward to trying this rig out in a real performance situation-- it
looks like a really promising solution for many applications.
John Sherman


From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Bose Cylindrical Radiator-- a report
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 14:49:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"TarBabyTunes" <<tarbabytunes@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20031205084928.09719.00000179@mb-m17...>...
> Thanks for the report, John!
>
> What's the price tag on this stuff?
>
list without sub is 1800.00$

 , amps,mixer,I  don't know about mics, and i am sure stands and cases are
extra
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/25/2003

For those of us who suffer ground loops: [2]
From: David Eidelberg <DavidEidelberg@msn...>
Subject: For those of us who suffer ground loops:
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:25:34 -0500

Looks like a safe solution will be here soon. I need this. Saw this on
Harmony Central:
Eliminate Ground Loops Quickly and Safely with Hum X

December 8, 2003
Ebtech announced the release of a revolutionary new product called the Hum
X.

Musician's who play live know that Ground Loop Hum can virtually ruin a
show. Ground Loop Hum can be very hard to get rid and safety is always cause
for concern when lifting grounds with ground lift adapters. Often, the
systems used to prevent hum can cause a potentially dangerous condition
resulting in electrical shocks.

The Hum X filters out unwanted voltage and current in the ground line that
cause ground loop hum while simultaneously maintaining a solid, safe ground.
Other devices force you to run your audio signal through it to break the
ground loop. This can result in loss of volume, tone or both. Some devices
simply remove the ground, which can be unsafe.

Simply place the Hum X on the end of the power cord of the equipment that
has a ground loop and plug the Hum X into the wall outlet. Ground Loop is
gone and audio signal remains intact. Easy to use and easy to install.

Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price is $89. Available January 2004.

For more information, visit their web site at www.ebtechaudio.com.

David


From: TD Madden <tdmadden48-no@spam-comcast...>
Subject: Re: For those of us who suffer ground loops:
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:50:37 -0500

David Eidelberg wrote:
> Looks like a safe solution will be here soon. I need this. Saw this on
> Harmony Central:
> Eliminate Ground Loops Quickly and Safely with Hum X
>
> December 8, 2003
> Ebtech announced the release of a revolutionary new product called the Hum
> X.
>
> Musician's who play live know that Ground Loop Hum can virtually ruin a
> show. Ground Loop Hum can be very hard to get rid and safety is always cause
> for concern when lifting grounds with ground lift adapters. Often, the
> systems used to prevent hum can cause a potentially dangerous condition
> resulting in electrical shocks.
>
> The Hum X filters out unwanted voltage and current in the ground line that
> cause ground loop hum while simultaneously maintaining a solid, safe ground.
> Other devices force you to run your audio signal through it to break the
> ground loop. This can result in loss of volume, tone or both. Some devices
> simply remove the ground, which can be unsafe.
>
> Simply place the Hum X on the end of the power cord of the equipment that
> has a ground loop and plug the Hum X into the wall outlet. Ground Loop is
> gone and audio signal remains intact. Easy to use and easy to install.
>
> Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price is $89. Available January 2004.
>
> For more information, visit their web site at www.ebtechaudio.com.
>
>
> David
>
>
I want one! I've been using their Hum Eliminator for awhile, but its a
pain having it inline with the input, particularly since a passive A/B/Y
switch doesn't provide enough signal.

Wonder why they have no information on their webpage....?

Thanks Doc!
From: George W. <geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>
Subject: Thanks Doc!
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:00:58 -0500

I just want to publicly thank Dan Gore (Ultraamps) for hooking us up
with an Ultrasound 50DS2. We picked it up yesterday. I haven't had a
chance to play with it too much yet but I'm real impressed. (I was
inspired to rip the iBeam out of my OM and relocate it after hearing
it through the amp, but that's another story.)

Thanks Doc. My three chord tunes never sounded so......loud. <g>

G.

(See you in a couple of days.)

I'm looking for a new old amp. [3]
From: Rolland <rollaand1>
Subject: I'm looking for a new old amp.
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:51:06 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

I'm here to ask the collective intelligence for a little help. Years ago I
saw and heard a Fender amp that I liked very much. I can't remember which
one it was. I know it wasn't one of the more popular amps offered during the
late 60's and early 70's. This thing had tiny little pictures below the
knobs. Each knob had a picture that was supposed to represent the tone or
sound it generated. My personal favorite was the last knob in the row. It
had a little nuclear mushroom cloud under it. When you cranked it out to 10,
you got some great growling distortion.

Can any of you remember what this thing was?

Rolland


From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@nospam...>
Subject: Re: I'm looking for a new old amp.
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:08:32 -0800

In article <<vti7o7m08cle43@corp...>>, Rolland <
out>@cable.net> wrote:

> I'm here to ask the collective intelligence for a little help. Years ago I
> saw and heard a Fender amp that I liked very much. I can't remember which
> one it was. I know it wasn't one of the more popular amps offered during the
> late 60's and early 70's. This thing had tiny little pictures below the
> knobs. Each knob had a picture that was supposed to represent the tone or
> sound it generated. My personal favorite was the last knob in the row. It
> had a little nuclear mushroom cloud under it. When you cranked it out to 10,
> you got some great growling distortion.
>
> Can any of you remember what this thing was?
>
> Rolland
>
>

Sorry, Rolland, for what follows below. I don't know that I ever
intentionally hijacked a thread before, but here goes (I'm sure someone
will really answer your question, BTW):

First we have to clarify; does Rolland want a new amp, or an old one?

Next, we have to determine what it is you actually intended to mean
when you said "I'm looking for a new old amp."

Then we will have to argue whether or not you actually said "I'm
looking for a new old amp." Several people will google this, and will
interpret the results of the header of your post differently.

Following this, we will argue continuously whether you really want an
old amp, or if you want a new one.

Many people, having owned one amp, will tell you how great their amp is.

A bit later on the conversation will transmogrify to whether you really
need any kind of amp at all, or if perhaps you might really need a PA.

Then someone will mention a brand of PA cables they once used, and how
this seemed to improve the quality of the sound of the PA.

After this, a good number of people that have never run a PA, nor
purchased any kind of cabling whatsoever, will then weigh in on the
merits of various cables, and whether or not anyone could really hear
the difference. These folks will conclude that the cables are not at
all important, as long as the music is good.

Subsequent to this, people will recommend a variety of PA components to
you.

Others will try to go back to discussing amps, but the whole cable
thing crops up again, and then someone starts talking about a brand of
1/4 inch plugs that they like.

One guy points out that you use cables for your amp, and that the
guitar cable is what really makes all the difference, as long as you're
plugged into the right pre-amp.

Several folks then describe how they use the Baggs Para DI, and it is
pointed out to Rolland that without the right pre-amp, it doesn't
matter what amp he gets.

Afterwards, we decide that prior to discussing the amp, a PA system,
cables, or pre-amps, we had best dissect Rolland's choice of gear for
his internal equipment.

I go barf.

--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
Guitar Odyssey
http://www.LarryPattis.com


From: Dick Thaxter <Richard.Thaxter@verizon...>
Subject: Re: I'm looking for a new old amp.
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:29:08 GMT

Rolland
> I'm here to ask the collective intelligence for a little help. Years ago I
> saw and heard a Fender amp that I liked very much. I can't remember which
> one it was. I know it wasn't one of the more popular amps offered during the
> late 60's and early 70's. This thing had tiny little pictures below the
> knobs. Each knob had a picture that was supposed to represent the tone or
> sound it generated. My personal favorite was the last knob in the row. It
> had a little nuclear mushroom cloud under it. When you cranked it out to 10,
> you got some great growling distortion.
>
> Can any of you remember what this thing was?
>
> Rolland
>

   Uh oh, you got Larry started now.  I didn't read all his post, so I 
don't know if he predicted this reply, but here goes.

   Rolland, it's a Fender Automatic SE.  It was probably only sold in 
the late 1990's for about $225 street price. I actually have one. I
don't think they make it anymore. I'm holding on to mine because it's a
decent solid state starter amp for my kids. It's a 25 W amp with a
decent clean sound. The varying degrees of built in distortion are
represented by a cowboy hat, an eagle, a weightlifter, and a zeppelin.
  The last button is the mushroom cloud which overrides all of the other 
presets and puts it into full on distortion.

Dick Thaxter

Ultrasound amps [11]
From: Scott McAllister <smcallister@adelphia...>
Subject: Ultrasound amps
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:13:45 GMT

Was wondering what the group's experiences with these amps have been. Any
comments?


From: Steven Dillon <strip_this_off_laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:09:19 -0800
Organization: Cox Communications

Hello Scott,
If you have any way of searching through the archives (like google's
search mechanism), please check there. You will find hundreds of
glowing posts concerning their merits. They are simply the best
available amps for some of us. I'm using mine in stereo right now
in the studio, and I doubt that there is any amp combination that
would give me what my two Ultrasounds can...

Keep Picking,

Steven Dillon

http://www.stevendillon.com

"Scott McAllister" <<smcallister@adelphia...>> wrote in message
news:JphCb.17$<xH2.67584@news1...>...
> Was wondering what the group's experiences with these amps have been. Any
> comments?
>
>


From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:16:02 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online

in article JphCb.17$<xH2.67584@news1...>, Scott McAllister at
<smcallister@adelphia...> wrote on 12/12/03 3:13 AM:

> Was wondering what the group's experiences with these amps have been. Any
> comments?
>
>

    Excellent products, particularly for the price.
--
Stephen T. Boyke


From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:14:14 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online

in article <3FD9EA82.4080006@spameasy...>, Ed Edelenbos at <eded@spameasy...>
wrote on 12/12/03 8:19 AM:

>
>
> Stephen Boyke wrote:
>> in article JphCb.17$<xH2.67584@news1...>, Scott McAllister at
>> <smcallister@adelphia...> wrote on 12/12/03 3:13 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Was wondering what the group's experiences with these amps have been. Any
>>> comments?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Excellent products, particularly for the price.
>> --
>> Stephen T. Boyke
>>
>
> I really wish someone else would have said this...
>
> If you google this group, there is a wealth of information on Ultrasound
> products. (And if you look at the recent threads, even someone who has
> one to sell.)
>
> Ed

    Ed,
    The Ultrasound are "commercial quality" for gigging.  They are not
"studiophile quality" though. If you wanna go there, have at it.
--
Stephen T. Boyke


From: Steven Dillon <strip_this_off_laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:06:06 -0800
Organization: Cox Communications

"Stephen Boyke" <<sdelsolray@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:BBFFE023.751B7%<sdelsolray@comcast...>...
> The Ultrasound are "commercial quality" for gigging. They are not
> "studiophile quality" though. If you wanna go there, have at it.
> --
Hello Stephen,
I will be interested in getting your opinion of my next recording
effort. I am using two Ultrasounds in the studio right now. I
think the sound is fantastic. I have been able to cut the noise
down to a minimum using ground lifts so that isn't much of a
factor, and to my ears, they are sounding every bit as good
as they ever have... Then again, I like that "live" feel to my
music and essentially I record live because I only do single
takes and I play no studio games what-so-ever with the end
product (no over-dubbing, or cutting/splicing)... Stay tuned...

Keep Picking,

Steven Dillon

http://www.stevendillon.com


From: Steven Dillon <strip_this_off_laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:16:30 -0800
Organization: Cox Communications

"George W." <<geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:<chjmtv4b6buj6njk3vf97r9uu948eu0o2d@4ax...>...
> For what is probably a dumb question but are you saying you use the
> Ultrasounds for recording? Could you explain this? We just got a 50D2S
> (In the original dark brown color. Yippee!) and really like it a lot.
> Thanks.
>
Hello George,
Sure... I'm running the direct outs (after lifting the ground on the XLR)
to the line in on the board, each amp also has an SM57 on it, and I
have one ambient mic in the room as well. The amps are being used in
stereo and produce a fantastic sound. Those 5 channels will all be wet
coming in. The remaining 3 channels (X-Y SM81's and an AT 4033)
are all clean on the guitar in a different room. Sounds pretty good so
far!

Keep Picking,

Steven Dillon

http://www.stevendillon.com


From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 04:18:32 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online

in article X0FCb.2724$<WQ3.2386@lakeread...>, Steven Dillon at
<strip_this_off_laswd@earthlink...> wrote on 12/13/03 9:06 AM:

>
> "Stephen Boyke" <<sdelsolray@comcast...>> wrote in message
> news:BBFFE023.751B7%<sdelsolray@comcast...>...
>> The Ultrasound are "commercial quality" for gigging. They are not
>> "studiophile quality" though. If you wanna go there, have at it.
>> --
> Hello Stephen,
> I will be interested in getting your opinion of my next recording
> effort. I am using two Ultrasounds in the studio right now. I
> think the sound is fantastic. I have been able to cut the noise
> down to a minimum using ground lifts so that isn't much of a
> factor, and to my ears, they are sounding every bit as good
> as they ever have... Then again, I like that "live" feel to my
> music and essentially I record live because I only do single
> takes and I play no studio games what-so-ever with the end
> product (no over-dubbing, or cutting/splicing)... Stay tuned...
>
> Keep Picking,
>
> Steven Dillon
>
> http://www.stevendillon.com
>
>

    Looking forward to hear it.  I've only gt a pair of Ultrasound 50Es,
which are just the poweramp/speaker slaves. I use them for gigging out
using outboard preamp & effects.
--
Stephen T. Boyke


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: 14 Dec 2003 16:22:20 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Stephen,

Like Steve Dillion, there are a number of artists who are using their
UltraSound's in the studio for recording. They like to Direct Out coupled with
a mic in the front. John Pizzarelli just finished a CD in NYC using the Direct
Out in conjunction with a mic in front.

Ultimately it is a matter to each his own but UltraSound does fit the bill in a
number of cases. I believe that with the introduction of the PDI we will see
this being used in the studio. In fact, it is being tested now with a couple
of groups who are household names. I won't mention who they are here but maybe
in a month I can say.

The Doc


From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: 14 Dec 2003 22:48:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

<<Stephen,

Like Steve Dillion, there are a number of artists who are using their
UltraSound's in the studio for recording. They like to Direct Out coupled with
a mic in the front. John Pizzarelli just finished a CD in NYC using the Direct
Out in conjunction with a mic in front.

Ultimately it is a matter to each his own but UltraSound does fit the bill in a
number of cases. I believe that with the introduction of the PDI we will see
this being used in the studio. In fact, it is being tested now with a couple
of groups who are household names. I won't mention who they are here but maybe
in a month I can say.

The Doc>>

What does this approach offer beyond recording acoustically with very good mics
in a studio?
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com


From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:05:26 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online

in article <n23ptvg4md3pdjed141big8s366htna286@4ax...>, George W. at
<geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...> wrote on 12/14/03 8:23 AM:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:59:22 GMT, Stephen Boyke wrote:
>
>> Steve Dillon's idea is great. Having heard his CDIII tunes, I
>> understand what he is going for.
>> --
>> Stephen Boyke
>
> I kind of understand it and I like Stevens music but I'm still
> confused about using the amps in a studio instead of just mics alone.
> I suppose the result is a mix of direct out from the amp mixed with a
> microphone input from the room sound from the amps. I haven't played
> with the Ultrasound direct outs but isn't the result very much
> dependant on the type of pickup used? Still, if you're after a live
> sound it makes sense since that's what you'd hear in a room.....
>
> G.

    George,
    Listen to Steven's tunes on CDIII, then listen to my tune of CDIII.
Steven's mics and amp and the guitar dry. Mine is just micing the guitar
and a Sunrise direct to the recorder (no amp).
--
Stephen T. Boyke


From: MM <ourjunkmail@sbcglobal...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound amps
Date: 12 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

"Scott McAllister" <<smcallister@adelphia...>> wrote in message news:<JphCb.17$<xH2.67584@news1...>>...
> Was wondering what the group's experiences with these amps have been. Any
> comments?

Since you asked...I am very pleased with Ultrasound. I use it in two
ways:

1) Acoustic fingerstyle rig. The amp acts as my onstage monitor and
the line out goes to the house. As lots of folks say, "...it sounds
like my guitar -- only louder..." I recently used it at this venue

 http://www.thehobbycenter.org/infovine/hcpa/hobbycenter/zilkha.asp
which is one of Houston's finest rooms for acoustics -- hands down.
People were amazed at the sound quality in that room with that amp.

2) For my standard electric setup, I use a Roland VG-8. I find that
the Ultrasound amp does a fantastic job with the VG-8. It serves me
well (with the VG-8) for contemporary jazz gigs, big band/swing, with
my Chet Atkins nylon,...you name it.

I also love how light it is.

I wish however that...

a) I had parameter control of the onboard effects. I can get an "OK"
reverb, but I like to do some deeper tweaking of verb settings (like
rolling off verb below 330hz, and all the other nifty things you can
adjust on a nice processor). I am really picky about reverb.

b) I could insert into the loop without bypassing the preamp, but that
isn't possible.

-Mark
www.touchthestrings.com
Check out our recent fingerstyle guitar/cello duo CD release.

Amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE [6]
From: Keith Duncan <Keith.Duncan@btinternet...>
Subject: Amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:00:14 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld

Can anyone recommend a suitable acoustic amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE?
Although it's a 414 it has the Prefix Stereo Blender bridge and mike
electrics. I want an amp with inputs for vocal as well as the guitar.

Many thanks for any help.

Keith Duncan


From: T-Bone <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:05:25 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Keith Duncan" <<Keith.Duncan@btinternet...>> wrote in message
news:bri1ed$q8v$<1@titan...>...
> Can anyone recommend a suitable acoustic amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE?
> Although it's a 414 it has the Prefix Stereo Blender bridge and mike
> electrics. I want an amp with inputs for vocal as well as the guitar.
>
> Many thanks for any help.
>
> Keith Duncan

Ultrasound AG50DS2.
If you need more power, get either the 100 watt model of the same amp, or my
preference- the AG50DS2-plus an AG50E (the powered extension cabinet.
Bob Dorgan
Bob Dorgan


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE
Date: 14 Dec 2003 16:14:13 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Keith,

I would invite you to see what the folks over on the Taylor Forum are saying.

The Doc


From: LarryLarry2003 <larrylarry2003@aol...>
Subject: Re: Amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE
Date: 14 Dec 2003 16:13:50 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

If vocal is any part of the plan, I would forget an acoustic amp and go with a
PA system. I much prefer a PA over an amp even for just guitar.

Larry Sprigg


From: YamahaEMX <g11355@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:44:35 -0600

"LarryLarry2003" <<larrylarry2003@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20031214111350.19782.00000145@mb-m01...>...
> If vocal is any part of the plan, I would forget an acoustic amp and go
with a
> PA system. I much prefer a PA over an amp even for just guitar.
>
> Larry Sprigg

I couldn't agree with Larry more, when I purchased my 410CE I also bought a
California Blond amp and took it back in a week, traded for a yamaha EMX
68S. The features that the PA offers out weights anything that a acoustic
amp has to offer, in my opinion.

Gary


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:31:45 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

Keith Duncan wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a suitable acoustic amplifier for a Taylor 414-CE?
> Although it's a 414 it has the Prefix Stereo Blender bridge and mike
> electrics. I want an amp with inputs for vocal as well as the guitar.
>
> Many thanks for any help.
>
> Keith Duncan
>
>

I would second Bob's recommendation. I use an UltraSound AG50DS2
with an AG50E extension cabinet, both 50-watts, for my guitar and
vocal. It's a nice combo.

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

Ultrasound Question [4]
From: George W. <geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>
Subject: Ultrasound Question
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:11:13 -0500

I'm being my usual anal self here with this question so keep that in
mind. <g>

I notice a very slight high frequency buzz through the speakers when
theres a guitar (or just a plug) connected and the master is up past
halfway or so. It's not affected by the level setting, just the
master. Don't seem to hear it with phones but that may be because
they're not as efficient as the amp speakers. It's really VERY slight
( I mean you have to listen pretty close) but I really don't know that
much about amps I was wondering if this is typical. Since the overall
brightness seems to go up some as the master volume is increased I
find that cutting the treble reduces it.

G.


From: don hindenach <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Question
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:41:49 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:11:13 UTC, George W.
<<geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>> wrote:

> I'm being my usual anal self here with this question so keep that in
> mind. <g>
>
> I notice a very slight high frequency buzz through the speakers when
> theres a guitar (or just a plug) connected and the master is up past
> halfway or so. It's not affected by the level setting, just the
> master. Don't seem to hear it with phones but that may be because
> they're not as efficient as the amp speakers. It's really VERY slight
> ( I mean you have to listen pretty close) but I really don't know that
> much about amps I was wondering if this is typical. Since the overall
> brightness seems to go up some as the master volume is increased I
> find that cutting the treble reduces it.

That it's 'very slight' is a tribute to the amp. Most amps are far
worse in this regard. Rejoice.

--

 -don hindenach-
donh at audiosys dot com


From: T-Bone <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Question
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:48:17 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"George W." <<geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:<f29ptvo449fss41cvo7qtfbbu9d4b127k7@4ax...>...
> I'm being my usual anal self here with this question so keep that in
> mind. <g>
>
> I notice a very slight high frequency buzz through the speakers when
> theres a guitar (or just a plug) connected and the master is up past
> halfway or so. It's not affected by the level setting, just the
> master. Don't seem to hear it with phones but that may be because
> they're not as efficient as the amp speakers. It's really VERY slight
> ( I mean you have to listen pretty close) but I really don't know that
> much about amps I was wondering if this is typical. Since the overall
> brightness seems to go up some as the master volume is increased I
> find that cutting the treble reduces it.
>
> G.

Not to worry. All amps do this to some extent.
Ultrasounds are far quieter than most.
Bob Dorgan


From: George W. <geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound Question
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:01:44 -0500

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:48:17 -0500, T-Bone wrote:

>
>"George W." <<geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
>news:<f29ptvo449fss41cvo7qtfbbu9d4b127k7@4ax...>...
>> I'm being my usual anal self here with this question so keep that in
>> mind. <g>
>>
>> I notice a very slight high frequency buzz through the speakers when
>> theres a guitar (or just a plug) connected and the master is up past
>> halfway or so. It's not affected by the level setting, just the
>> master. Don't seem to hear it with phones but that may be because
>> they're not as efficient as the amp speakers. It's really VERY slight
>> ( I mean you have to listen pretty close) but I really don't know that
>> much about amps I was wondering if this is typical. Since the overall
>> brightness seems to go up some as the master volume is increased I
>> find that cutting the treble reduces it.
>>
>> G.
>
>Not to worry. All amps do this to some extent.
>Ultrasounds are far quieter than most.
>Bob Dorgan

Thanks guys, I figured as much but I was running out of things to
worry about. I had it set up close to ear level so it was a little
more noticable. By playing with the level (gain) and the master volume
it can be controlled pretty well. A very minor thing but I don't know
squat about amps.

I LOVE this amp. I have no idea why I felt I needed it but I love it.
The place I bought it from in North Jersey still has an old style
(brand new) 50w with digital effects but without the XLR channel for
$300. Seems like a good deal for anyone interested.

G.

Schertler Unico and AER amps [5]
From: Hans Andersson <handers@tulane...>
Subject: Schertler Unico and AER amps
Date: 16 Dec 2003 14:50:08 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

Anybody do an A/B on these two amps? The Schertler is said to keep up
amazingly well as an acoustic amp with the AER and might be sa bit
less expensive?

hans


From: Tom Gindorf <???@???...>
Subject: Re: Schertler Unico and AER amps
Date: 17 Dec 2003 13:22:10 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

I second this question and request any feedback about the TRS input on
the AER...does this avoid the necessity of a blender...does the Unico
have one?


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Schertler Unico and AER amps
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:35:26 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Tom Gindorf wrote:

> I second this question and request any feedback about the TRS input on
> the AER...does this avoid the necessity of a blender...does the Unico
> have one?

What is a TRS input? My AER has an XLR input and an instrument input.
The XLR is a Neutrik type with central instrument/mic jack in the middle
of the XLR three-pin socket, so you can plug in two guitar sources, and
use the Mic/Line Pad button to adjust the impedance to suit the
instrument source put through the mic channel.

David


From: Ed Edelenbos <eded@spameasy...>
Subject: Re: Schertler Unico and AER amps
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:28:55 -0500

Steve Comeau wrote:
>>What is a TRS input? My AER has an XLR input and an instrument input.
>>The XLR is a Neutrik type with central instrument/mic jack in the middle
>>of the XLR three-pin socket, so you can plug in two guitar sources, and
>>use the Mic/Line Pad button to adjust the impedance to suit the
>>instrument source put through the mic channel.
>>
>>David
>>
>
>
> I'm guessing TRS= Tip, Ring, Sleeve. e.g. a 1/4" stereo plug or jack.
>
> All the best,
>
> Steve "satisfied owner of an AER Compact 60" Comeau
>

Correct... typically, tip is hot (xlr pin 2), ring is cold (xlr pin 3),
and sleeve is ground (xlr pin 1) for balanced inputs and outputs. For
some applications, in can be used as an unbalanced input with a TS (tip,
sleeve) plug where tip is hot and the sleeve (including the part which
is usually the ring) is ground (i.e. a 1/4" mono plug).

Ed
--
The SPAM got to me... change spam to speak in the return address.


From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Schertler Unico and AER amps
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:39:48 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited

Steve Comeau wrote:
> "David Kilpatrick" <<iconmags3@btconnect...>> wrote in message
> news:brqlne$91j$<1@hercules...>...
>
>>
>>Tom Gindorf wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I second this question and request any feedback about the TRS input on
>>>the AER...does this avoid the necessity of a blender...does the Unico
>>>have one?
>>
>>What is a TRS input? My AER has an XLR input and an instrument input.
>>The XLR is a Neutrik type with central instrument/mic jack in the middle
>>of the XLR three-pin socket, so you can plug in two guitar sources, and
>>use the Mic/Line Pad button to adjust the impedance to suit the
>>instrument source put through the mic channel.
>>
>>David
>>
>
>
> I'm guessing TRS= Tip, Ring, Sleeve. e.g. a 1/4" stereo plug or jack.
>

Of course. What I normally just call a stereo jack - but of course on
the AER it is not, it is a balanced input, that's all. Mono. Can not be
used with a twin guitar source.

David

Ultrasound dust covers
From: George W. <geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound dust covers
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:54:09 -0500

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:10:09 -0800, Stephen Boyke wrote:

>On 12/16/03 9:25 AM, in article <ttfutvc6udvo6tlp6mvljp280oglv097j1@4ax...>,
>"George W." <<geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>> wrote:
>
>> Anyone know what color they are? Dark brown or the newer tan?
>
>
>Mine are the dark brown, to match the older style color. The covers come
>with cool little pockets too.

Ooooh....<g> The dark brown covers seem to now be collector items.
I've checked a few places and everyone seems to be waiting for the new
tan ones.

G.

Bose PAS Update (long) [2]
From: Steve Scott <squeegybug@netspace1...>
Subject: Bose PAS Update (long)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:06:56 GMT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com

Here's a followup on my experience with the Bose PAS/L-1/Cylindrical
Radiator/Whatever-Else-Name-They-Can-Call-It... See RMMGA thread "New
type of PA system" for previous discussions. I was using a single tower
and subwoofer ($2000) with a duo - myself and singing partner vocals, one
acoustic guitar.

Pros:
We can hear close to what the audience is hearing. The system sounds
better at a distance, pretty nice dispersion through the room. It's
compact (four pieces as we used it), no tangle of cords, no monitors
needed. Have to stay at least 4 feet away -- it can play loud, but will
start feeding back and/or hurting your ears even that close to it. If we
could get 8 feet away it would probably work better, but we didn't try
that as it wouldn't be practical at the gigs we'd use it for. Can sound
pretty good with acoustic guitar by itself, nothing spectacular. I like
the concept, and applaud Bose for trying to simplify (improve?) the
musician's SR needs.

Cons:
The sound is "flat", kind of two-dimensional. As I said before, it
somehow sounds disconnected, like a recording of ourselves... There are
no models for vocal condenser mics. We prefer the Shure Beta 87A, but
they just wouldn't work, all screech and feedback with any existing mic
presets. We tried running the 87's through outboard mixers (Allen &
Heath DP1000, Behringer MXB1002, and Pendulum SPS-1), none of those
worked either with or without the mic models.

So we used SM57 and SM58, with their respective presets. These were
better, I like the 57 on my voice and used it for a couple of years, it
worked fairly well on the PAS. My wife has a beautiful alto voice, which
is spectacular on our DP1000/SLS system - it sounded absolutely
_terrible_ on the PAS, with any combination of mics and presets. She
detested the PAS (duh).

Overall, the vocals were "honky", just nasal and compressed, with no air
or resonance. It feels like... singing through a tall, slender column of
very small, very focused speakers.... Oh wait... Anyway, some of this
is probably because of the lack of reverb or delay. There are no onboard
effects. There are inserts on channels 1 and 2, but we didn't use them -
that might have helped, or not, Bose has been insistent that the system
will work as designed, no outboard FX recommended.

A real non-starter for me - the system I had emitted a _very_ high-
pitched squeal. I admit I have extremely sensitive hearing, my wife says
I have "dog ears". This noise caused me physical discomfort, I could
never use it that way. Maybe it was defective, or maybe most people
(Bose engineers? :-) don't notice it. Maybe in a noisy venue it wouldn't
be a problem.

There are no remote controls for the line inputs, you must set the trim
on the base and use that as your volume reference, kinda awkward. I've
posted elsewhere about the inconvenience of having to crawl around on the
floor behind the base and squint to adjust settings for all the inputs -
I guess if you had it already dialed in properly this wouldn't be
necessary.

The system will definitely feed back. If it's turned up and you move
from between the mic and tower, look out! I tried as a solo, one
acoustic guitar mic only. The only condenser mic preset is AKG 451,
which I don't have. I tried Audio Technica AT4051A, a very nice cardioid
condenser with outstanding off-axis response. The sound was not too good
even at low volume, and not a chance with any amp gain, all boom, squeal,
string or pick noise with any or no presets. Large diaphragms (AT4033a,
ADK A-48, Shure KSM27, Soundelux U195) were a little better, not too bad
at low-to-mid volume, no good at higher levels. The best? -- Shure SM57,
no question. This one worked nicely (using the appropriate SM57 preset
and careful positioning of course), no doubt a lot of programming went
into its model.

Now here's the downside -- after setting the 57 guitar mic, I turned on
the vocal mic (also SM57) and the sound went straight to hell. Rumbling,
echoing, jangle, feedback, hollow sound, you name it. Turn one mic off
(either one) and the sound is fine. Obviously the PAS has a problem with
multiple open mics when one is in front of an acoustic guitar. Now, I
only tried with the Gibson SJ200, admittedly a _large_ resonant surface,
so maybe this would have worked better with my Martin 000-16SGT, but I
didn't try it. I tried combinations of this setup several times, always
similar results -- with a vocal mic open, low volume on the guitar mic
was ok, so if you wanted to blend with a pickup it might work a little
better, but I could not recommend guitar on microphone only, if you're
going to sing.

I used these pickups, again with the SJ200 - Trance Audio Acoustic Lens,
Sunrise, and Baggs Element Active. I liked Acoustic lens and Sunrise the
best. Using with the subwoofer can produce too much bass, not a good
kind either, much too loose and woofy for me. Will cause low resonance
even on the Sunrise. I went direct into the PAS preamp using various
pickup models and also through outboard preamps and into the PAS line
inputs. After tweaking, I could get a fairly nice sound, but nothing
remarkable. It was nice to have the sound "spread" more than with an
acoustic amp. But again there's a drawback -- after dialing in a good
tone, I put a capo on the 3rd fret and started to play -- yuk, all nasal
and compressed, very shrill and dull at the same time (bad combination).
I tried this lots of times, the system for whatever reason just doesn't
respond well with the strings capoed, unless set up for that. If I set
up for the clamp, I could get it to work fairly well, then I had awful
rumble and rattle when I removed the capo. I know this sounds weird, I
was stymied and finally gave up.

Some of our problems were due to trying with more than one musician per
system. The sound tends to get "cluttered", with lack of distinction
between tones when multiple sources are mixed in one tower. It was very
difficult to sing harmony parts together. To be fair, Bose recommends
one for each musician, and I think it would definitely work better that
way, of course that can get expensive. Some of my concerns might get
resolved (more mic models, onboard effects, better controls, etc.) with
subsequent upgrades, which I suspect Bose has in the works. I don't
believe they will get condenser microphones to work very well with the
tower design; I think the sensitivity and broader frequency response of
the condensers will continue to cause problems.

So, in summary -- can it work... in a band? Yes, I think so -- I was at
our company Christmas party last weekend and people were leaving in
droves because of the ungodly nasty sound -- 9-foot ceiling, rock walls,
tile floor, and these guys brought in screaming compression horns at ear
level, individual electric guitar amps tilted up with full distortion and
feedback, 3-piece horn section also mic'ed, and a half-drunk soundman who
hasn't heard anything over 4 kHz in five years, you get the picture...
Anything would have been better than that mess, and this is part of
Bose's target. With several towers, some of the "compressed" sound I had
a problem with might ease. I'd like to hear the systems like this
sometime, although I firmly believe that if you put George Gleason or
Richard Battaglia in front of this band, even with its existing
equipment, the Bose PAS would still not compete.

... As acoustic solo? Probably work ok, if you're singing you'll likely
need a supplemental pickup. It obviously spreads the sound out nicer
than a single amp. I think you'll want some outboard effects and EQ, so
it's not entirely self-contained. Fairly expensive just as an amp
replacement.

... Acoustic/electric duo/trio/quartet? No way. A single tower is just
not capable of or designed for this.

Cost comparison? My current system:
Pendulum SPS-1 preamp = $1400
Allen and Heath DP1000 powered mixer = $900
SLS 8190 ribbon speakers = $1000 (or so...)
Total = $3300
These are new prices - I bought some used, and got a great deal from
George on the SLS, so my total cost was about $2200. The Pendulum is
definitely optional, the A&H mic pre's are very nice alone, but we like
the "extra" feel we get from the dedicated preamp. As I said, I can't
use a single PAS tower for my group, I would need two, so Bose cost is
$4000.

Number of pieces?
Mine: (1) Preamp/Mixer in a case, (2) speakers, (2) stands = 5 pieces,
105 lb.
Bose: (1) base, (2) towers, (1) sub = 4 pieces, 95 lb.

My bottom line? I had the system on 30-day approval. I returned it for
a refund. When we got tired and frustrated from trying to make it work,
we turned our regular system back on -- Ahhh!! This is the real deal,
the sound just _sweeps_ the room, control of every whisper or shout, full
strong acoustic bass, shimmering vocal air, ... It was like breaking
free from being tied up or something, after singing on the PAS. This
system is just too much competition for the Bose, as I suspect others
will be as well.

Hope that's of use to you folks, thanks for reading. Just remember, its
about the music -- none of this is worth getting too worked up about,
it's fun to compare and contrast but I always end up liking variety and
moving stuff around anyway. Peace at your holiday season...

Steve


From: Steve Scott <squeegybug@netspace1...>
Subject: Re: Bose PAS Update (long)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:28:37 GMT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com

<johns16545@aol...> says...
> Thanks for posting this comprehensive review, Steve. I'd hoped that the Bose
> cylindrical radiator would pass muster with a more demanding setup than my
> cursory experience allowed for, but it looks like once again the devil is in
> the details...
> John Sherman
>

You're welcome all you guys. I learn a lot here and like to be able to
offer some information back, so I hope it helps. Please don't take my
"opinions" as absolute truth (like you would :o There are lots of
potential uses for this Bose system, it just doesn't happen to suit my
particular needs at this time.

For others' experience, check out the PAS forum sometime:
http://bose.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=8206048934. Click on the little
tiny blue & green globe next to "Bose Music Talk" and you can read newest
posts. Sounds like many folks there are getting useful results, although
most posts seem to be about band situations, not strictly acoustic
guitars like we want, so I had to find out for myself! I'm from Missouri
and "Show Me" is a way of life here <g>

Bose will sell you one and ship free for 90-day trial, if you decide to
return it they'll pay the return freight. Let us know your feedback if
you get to check it out - I'm sure there are tricks I missed that might
help this kind of system work for acoustic guitarists, I'm not always the
most patient guy around, but I try to make up for it with stubbornness...

Steve

Ultrasound 50D2S Questions [6]
From: George W. <geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>
Subject: Ultrasound 50D2S Questions
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:40:48 -0500

I ran into something that's got me confused with our new
Ultrasound 50D2S and I was hoping someone more familiar with these
amps could point me in the right direction. I picked up the same model
for a friend at a local shop. I couldn't resist checking it out when I
got home and was really surprised to hear how different it sounded
than ours. It was capable of playing a LOT louder with the gain
(level) up and was a bit quieter too. Ours has a very slight buzz from
the speakers when the master is up past halfway, this one just hiss
though when the master is high it's a lot of hiss. It was also voiced
differently.....it sounds kind of like the midrange is scooped out a
bit. The Shape switch is not so dramatic, which in a way makes it seem
more usable.

It's a newer model. There are some minor cosmetic
differences and the serial number is higher, #10208 to our #7760. It
also had an included number order card for the effects, which is
different from those marked on the back of the amp. I assume this was
a transitional change of some kind.

I'm kinda lost on what to do. I got a good deal on ours
but the newer amp does seem to have some refinements. Either that or
ours is not quite up to spec. Sound wise I like them both, probably
leaning a bit toward ours since the centered EQ sounds a little more
natural. As I said the big difference is the extra gain boost and the
absence of the very slight buzz at a high master setting. (This is
really pretty minor I suppose, but it is noticable if the amp is close
to ear level.)

I still have a couple of days to return it but I would probably only
do that if I knew for sure any of this wasn't typical for these
earlier amps. I talked to Doc about it a week ago and he was looking
into it, but I know a lot of people here have them and was hoping
someone could let me know if mine was behaving normally. Feel free to
email me direct if that's easier.

Thanks.

George W.


From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound 50D2S Questions
Date: 27 Dec 2003 10:31:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

George,

Wanted to check in here. The plant is closed until Jan 2nd so we won't get any
feedback from Greg until then. The difference in volume is the way Greg set up
the gain control at the input level. Not sure about all the details but
basically that's what it is. Still not clear about the buzz issue.

The Doc


From: misifus <rseibert@cox-internet...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound 50D2S Questions
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:03:20 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

As far as the buzz goes, do you have any lights on dimmers near
your amp? If you do, try turning them off. Dimmers are pretty
bad about creating noise, I've had that happen with mine.

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


From: George W. <geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound 50D2S Questions
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:49:48 -0500

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:03:20 -0600, misifus wrote:

>As far as the buzz goes, do you have any lights on dimmers near
>your amp? If you do, try turning them off. Dimmers are pretty
>bad about creating noise, I've had that happen with mine.

No, no dimmers, nothing like that. It does sound electrical in nature
though. I like to put the amp on a counter I use, which puts it on ear
level. With the master past halfway there's a very small high/mid
frequency buzz from the speakers. At floor level it's hard to notice
but at ear level I'm always aware of it. I wouldn't mention it at all
except for the fact that the newer model didn't seem to do it. You do
get hiss and since the gain is stronger on the newer it can get fairly
loud but there's no buzz.

Just to keep things in perspective: I'm describing noises on the
Ultrasound level, which are very low no matter how you measure it. And
I'm being my usual anal self here. I'd just like to know if anyone
else can confirm that the little buzz is normal while I still have the
option of exchanging the amp for another, newer one.

Thanks.


From: Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound 50D2S Questions
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:12:23 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"George W." <<geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:<do9ruvg7i5coms784cigliourfs1i8nn6p@4ax...>...
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:03:20 -0600, misifus wrote:
>
> >As far as the buzz goes, do you have any lights on dimmers near
> >your amp? If you do, try turning them off. Dimmers are pretty
> >bad about creating noise, I've had that happen with mine.
>
> No, no dimmers, nothing like that. It does sound electrical in nature
> though. I like to put the amp on a counter I use, which puts it on ear
> level. With the master past halfway there's a very small high/mid
> frequency buzz from the speakers. At floor level it's hard to notice
> but at ear level I'm always aware of it. I wouldn't mention it at all
> except for the fact that the newer model didn't seem to do it. You do
> get hiss and since the gain is stronger on the newer it can get fairly
> loud but there's no buzz.
>
> Just to keep things in perspective: I'm describing noises on the
> Ultrasound level, which are very low no matter how you measure it. And
> I'm being my usual anal self here. I'd just like to know if anyone
> else can confirm that the little buzz is normal while I still have the
> option of exchanging the amp for another, newer one.
>
> Thanks.

I've got an older model, and I have to be pretty close to full volume before
I hear ANY hiss.
The Ultrasounds are the quietest (is that a word?) I've ever used.
Take it back.
At least try another one in the store.... that will be the easiest thing to
do to quell the doubts.
Bob Dorgan


From: George W. <geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound 50D2S Questions
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:24:01 -0500

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:12:23 -0500, Dorgan wrote:

>I've got an older model, and I have to be pretty close to full volume before
>I hear ANY hiss.
>The Ultrasounds are the quietest (is that a word?) I've ever used.
>Take it back.
>At least try another one in the store.... that will be the easiest thing to
>do to quell the doubts.
>Bob Dorgan

Thanks Bob. I called the place I got it and apparently they only do
store credit. Not a big help since they don't have any more Ultrasound
amps like this. They're supposed to check on Monday about swapping it
out for a new model. It's gonna cost an extra $125 though since this
one was the last they had and they were selling it at a good price.
When I talk to them I'll see what the deal is. Again, the buzz is
extremely low but the newer amp didn't have it. I hate this shit.....

By the way, it's dead quiet through headphones but that may be
typical.

G.

George's UltraSound Issue [4]
From: Ultraamps <ultraamps@aol...>
Subject: George's UltraSound Issue
Date: 27 Dec 2003 18:54:18 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

George,

Let's hook up on Monday and I'll pick the amp up from you and send it back to
the plant.

The Doc
888-308-1557


From: David Eidelberg <DavidEidelberg@msn...>
Subject: Re: George's UltraSound Issue
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:29:42 -0500

Damn, there is NO such thing as better service than this!!!!

"Ultraamps" <<ultraamps@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20031227135418.29482.00001132@mb-m02...>...
> George,
>
> Let's hook up on Monday and I'll pick the amp up from you and send it back
to
> the plant.
>
>
> The Doc
> 888-308-1557


From: Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: George's UltraSound Issue
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:45:48 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

"Ultraamps" <<ultraamps@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20031227135418.29482.00001132@mb-m02...>...
> George,
>
> Let's hook up on Monday and I'll pick the amp up from you and send it back
to
> the plant.
>
>
> The Doc
> 888-308-1557

There you go....
Service like that can't be beat.
Doc, if you ever start selling trucks-we need to talk.
Bob Dorgan


From: George W. <geo_removethis_wirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: George's UltraSound Issue
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:57:21 -0500

On 27 Dec 2003 18:54:18 GMT, Ultraamps wrote:

>George,
>
>Let's hook up on Monday and I'll pick the amp up from you and send it back to
>the plant.

Dan and I got together this afternoon. He called me.

G.


This web page is a resource of AG and was prepared by AG webslave Tom Loredo.
File created: Thu Oct 28 10:30:45 EDT 2004