Ampeg vs. Ashdown

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:18 pm

Jean, my point is that watts are watts whether they are coming from a SS amp or a tube amp. tube amps aren't any louder they are just a lot thicker and fuller sounding. If you measure their output it will be close, although most SVT's put out closer to 350 watts RMS. A tube amp just sounds louder because of that factor, they're not really any louder, they just sound better IMHO of course. So if you are going to compare amps you should compare similar sized amps and go from there. Comparing a 100 watt amp to a 300 watt amp is like comparing a Ford to a Ferrari.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:28 pm

I always thought that a valve amp "sounds" louder is because its waveform isn't as clipped as that of a ss amp in overdrive.

rickengrowl · Post by **rickengrowl** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:19 pm

"Comparing a 100 watt amp to a 300 watt amp is like comparing a Ford to a Ferrari."

Please Bob, allow me to remind you the starter of this thread is hesitating between a B-100R and a 300w Ashdown MAG combo. Having experience with both, I just tried to help him, based on his choices.

Cheers
JL

soundmasterg · Post by **soundmasterg** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:32 pm

Bob, a tube amp will be louder for a given wattage than a solid state amp. On paper they will spec out the same, and the solid state amp will have a better distortion figure, but that doesn't mean anything. Through the same speaker cabinet, the tube amp will be louder because as a tube distorts, it does so with mostly even harmonics which reinforce the fundamental note and basically add volume to it. Not only that but you can turn a tube amp up over its ratings to get more volume. When you do that with a transistor, they blow! When you measure power output of an amp, it is done when you have a clean sine wave on a scope. On a tube amp, that point is very low on the dial. So a 300w SVT is 300w RMS, but maybe 600w peak depending on the load you are running it though. A solid state amp will be 300w RMS and maybe 350w peak and thats all you get out of it. These even harmonics that tube amps put out is a major reason why they sound better than solid state stuff because when transistors distort, they give you odd harmonics that actually mask the fundamental note and make it lose power. It is a very narrow range where transistors will do this though before they hard clip. Tubes make their way up to hard clipping gradually with lots of cool harmonics along the way that act as a compressor and make your overall volume louder.

ojobob2 · Post by **ojobob2** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:31 am

I use an Ashdown, if you wanna hear it go to the "listen to my ricky" thread

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:57 am

Thanks guys, great tone Owen.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:43 am

Greg it is correct that SS amps clip quicker and more easily than tube amps but how many bass players intentionally clip their amps? I don't think distortion in a good bass amp adds that much to the volume, if it's noticeble enough to increase the volume it will sound like mud. If you have a 300 watt SS amp running clean and a 300 watt tube amp running clean the tube amp will sound apparently louder because they sound much fuller, why? There are many theories but no definitive answers. 2nd order harmonics are what a tube amp predominantly has when it is overdriven and SS amps have mostly 1st order harmonics overdriven, they are both harmonic distortion, 2nd order is more pleasing to the ears. An SVT has 3% harmonic at 300 watts, that is not a lot. (harmonic vs spurious distortion was a raging argument over at the dudepit a while ago BTW)
Jean I'm not trying to PO anyone here, but the title of the thread is Ampeg vs Ashdown, and if you are going to compare different brands of amps whether tube or SS and say they sound louder and thicker you must use the same wattage or the test is not valid. Sound is a subjective thing so you must have some basis for comparison and RMS watts at a certain precentage of distortion is the way amps are compared. A fair comparison is a 300 watt Ashdown to a 300 watt Ampeg because specs don't lie. It has been proven in tests that louder sounds better to most people, hence my Ford to Ferrari comparison.
And yeah, Owen has always had a great tone, everything I've ever heard by him has been good.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:35 am

think its called dynamic headroom.

transient peaks occur even at lower volumes.

"that's nine louder innit..."

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:41 am

Bob, whilst the title of the thread is Ampeg vs Ashdown, Scott's initial post appears to request opinions on a comparison between a SPECIFIC Ampeg and a SPECIFIC Ashdown. Whilst I agree that a 100W to 300W comparison isn't necessarily fair, as in the majority of cases the 300W is going to come off best, given Scott's quoted options, I have to agree with Jean; if Scott asks which of these 2 amps is recommended, then that's the comparison we have to make. Maybe the reasons for the choice between these two are financial? Maybe they're both a similar price? For most people that's a major consideration; the first thing they'll do when choosing an amp (or bass even)is see what options their budget allows, and then go from there. Obviously other issues like personal requirements, portability etc are also factors. It may help if it was clarified exactly WHY the choice is between these 2 amps.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:48 am

I didn't read it that way Shaun but you may have a point, I just saw it as an ampeg-Ashdown comparison as he mentions the Ampeg B2 which is a bigger head than the B100R and used Ashdown in the plural.
And yeah more watts more headroom. I never really trust figures for transient peaks but I don't trust a lot of things other people do so as usual this was my (not so) humble opinion.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:54 am

"...comparing a Ford to a Ferrari"

Did you know that Ford tried to buy Ferrari in the mid '60s? Imagine...a Ferrari Fairlane!

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:14 am

A couple of interesting facts about amps:
most of the time with an amp you are using only a fraction of it's wattage, the only time you use all of it is on those 'transient peaks' like when you really wack the E string or the low B. (unless you are a maniac or a guitar player who uses power tube distortion)
One other, you have to multiply the wattage by ten to get double the volume, ex. a 100 watt amp is only twice as loud maxed out as a 10 watt amp is maxed out.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:15 am

Personally I'd have a 60s Mustang over any Ferrari ever made, with the possible exception of the 350 GTO, but hey, that's just me...

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:54 am

426 hemi Mopar, yeah!!!

rickengrowl · Post by **rickengrowl** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:01 am

Scott, I read your initial post again, and let me add this, if this may be of any interest.

Both these amps are nice combos, but if I were you I'd probably consider a head + a separate cab, for portability reasons (and also for better evolution capabilities). That's one of the reasons (among others) why I switched from B-100R to Ashdown. Both head and cab are very light, while the B-100R is terrible on that point, with its floppy handle on the top and its lack of casters. The B-100R became a nightmare very soon for me when I had to take it out.

Also, as I already said, the Ashdown is much louder (yes Bob, that's normal !

and has more tonal capabilities. And at least, my 4003 sounded thicker with the Ashdown. The B-100R is somewhat the solid-state "legacy" of the old Portaflex series, but finally sounding thinner. And yet the original B15's sounded poor (at least for me) with a Rick. But once again, the B-100R is a very good amp (I remember awesome tone with a P-Bass when gigging Motown and Stax stuff).

Cheers,
JL