An amp idea...

James Collett · From: San Dimas, CA

Ok- so with all the multi-instrumentalist steelers there are that want to elimate carrying more than one amp rig around, how come nobody's designed a two-channel amp (one side for steel, one for guitar)... would it be much more difficult than designing/building a regular two-channel amp?

Didn't old Fender Bassman amps have a channel for bass and a channel for guitar?
_________________
James Collett

Richard Durrer · From: Alberta, Canada

James: Peavey designed the Vegas 400 for just this purpose. One channel is geared for steel. Channel 2 is for guitar. 250 watts into a 15" Black Widow. However, it is a solid state rather than tube amp.
_________________
1999 Carter D10 (9x8),Digitech RP150,Hilton Volume Pedal,Roland Cube 80XL,Nashville 112,BJS Bar

Richard Sinkler · From: aka: Rusty Strings -- Missoula, Montana

Don't most guitar players prefer 12" speakers?

David Doggett · Posted 6 Jun 2009 9:36 pm

We've had many discussions about this, and at one point Peavey took suggestions on a Forum thread. They may have something in the works. The market is so small, I doubt any other maker would want to make the huge tube amp that would be required.

Just making a typical tube amp with two channels won't work. There are plenty of multi-channel 100 watt tube guitar amps, and some with attenuation. But they breakup too early for steel, even on the "clean" channel. There are also some good 100 watt two channel amps, such as the silver-face Twin Reverbs, that play clean to the top and are good for steel; but they don't have the break up guitar players want.

Guitar players these days want a tube amp from 20-50 watts, with lots of warmth, and that breaks up somewhere in the top half of the volume range. Steelers need 100 or more watts of colder tone with no break up at all. So what you would have to do is make a huge, heavy 150-200 watt tube amp (we're talking 6-8 power tubes) that would give 100 or more watts with no break up for steel (about like a late silver-face Twin). From that point on up it would have the breakup guitar players want, but would be way too loud for anything but a stadium. So the guitar channel would have to have an attenuator that dropped it down to the usable 20-50 watt range.

So, unless Peavey tackles this, I don't think anyone else is going to make a 150-200 watt tube amp with attenuation. It would be a very strange beast that would only appeal to the minority of steelers who double on guitar. Ultimately, it's probably easier for everyone to just use two amps.

I don't think the speakers are a problem. 2x12 would work fine for guitar and steel. A 150-200 watt tube amp would be impractically heavy for a combo anyway. As a head, if you really wanted different speakers for guitar and steel, you could hook it up to 12s for guitar and one or two 15s for steel. But again, at that point you might as well just bring two combos, and there are plenty of them already out there for both guitar and steel.

Bottom line, it's a very big, heavy, expensive, impractical amp for a very small market. Probably ain't gonna happen any time soon. But they are working on smaller lighter amps with good tube tone, so it could happen some day.

David Nugent · From: Gum Spring, Va.

I believe that Webb (pre Tom Bradshaw) had in the past manufactured a few dual channel amps intended for both steel and guitar use. One popped up for sale on the Forum a few years back.

Bobby Burns · From: Tennessee, USA

It wouldn't have to be a tube amp. Also the guy who is concerned with an extra amp to carry, would not necessarily need 200 watts. I think there are plenty of guys who would want an amp that was a moderate size, full range 12" speaker, with a clean channel voiced for steel, a clean channel voiced for guitar. The dsp effects and modeling and such, that are so common these days, could be used on both channels, with switchable memory spaces allow as many clean or dirty sounds as most of us would need. It wouldn't suit everybody, what product ever has, but it would please a lot of us.

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

Of course, it can be done. But before anyone can start to think about actually doing it, they must figure out what that market segment - "clean" pedal steel players who double on guitar and aren't satisfied with just using their pedal steel amp - would really want in a guitar amp. The second part is to figure out if that market - that might buy something specially designed like this - is big enough to justify the expense of designing and producing such an amp. The third part would be to figure out exactly how to achieve this without making the amp so big and heavy that it would be easier to bring two amps.

To me - if you like the sound of a clean solid-state amp for guitar, but maybe want it voiced a little differently - why not just use any current clean solid-state amp you like and re-voice it for one or the other using an outboard EQ? For example, one can use a pedal steel amp and use the EQ for guitar, or a clean guitar amp like the Peavey Stereo Chorus 212 and revoice it a bit for pedal steel? I think there are lots of amps that one can get a good clean solid-state sound on either pedal steel or guitar with a bit of EQ help.

To me, the problem is that - in my experience - the vast majority of guitar players out there want a tube amp sound for guitar. The problem comes in when we want to push the amp - except for modeling amps, to my tastes, solid-state amps just don't cut it. The question to me is whether or not that is representative for most doubling pedal steel players.

With all these thoughts in mind, I think that one must ascertain that there's a market for a combined tube/solid-state amp to proceed any further. If there is a significant market for such a thing, now one must figure out how to design it.

I think there is already a reasonable solution - use a tube amp modeler for guitar into a clean solid-state amp, ideally with two channels. You don't really need it built into the amp. In fact, I think it's pretty clear after 10+ years of modelers that most guitarists prefer small boxes like the Pod, not built-in units in the amp, just in case someone wants to suggest a two-channel guitar-modeling + pedal-steel-clean solid-state amp. This approach works for many guitarists (including me) - some are fussier and don't like modelers, but I think that sets the tone for what would be required to make this concept work.

Therefore, I think this pushes the concept to a two-channel tube-guitar + solid-state-steel amp. Then the question becomes whether one can really get the sound such guitarists want with a tube guitar preamp and share the solid-state power section with pedal steel. Again, my experience is that most guitarists who are this fussy would not accept such a compromise. I know I'd much rather have a modeler than this.

So now, following this reasoning through - we're talking about an amp with two completely separate amps in one - a complete tube amp for guitar, and a separate complete solid-state amp for pedal steel. This will work, since one can make the tube amp less powerful - the typical guitar player doesn't need as much power for guitar as for clean pedal steel. So the only remaining issue is whether or not the two amps can share speaker(s). I think there are speakers out there that can do this fine - the 12" Peavey Blue Marvel sounds fine for 80 watts of pedal steel and also for guitar with a modeler to me.

I can see two reasonable approaches here. The first would be simply adding a 20-watt, 2-6V6 Deluxe-Reverb style amp to the current 80-watt NV 112, sharing the current 12" Blue Marvel speaker. The second approach would be to add a 40-watt, 2-6L6 Vibrolux-Reverb style amp to a 120-watt steel NV 112 style steel guitar side with a slightly upgraded speaker to handle the additional power. To me, the key would be to keep it simple - no distortion or fancy effects channels - you can get that stuff with a pedal into a tube amp anyway. I would aim at country, blues, or traditional rock and roll players who want both tube and clean solid-state sounds. Maybe with modern electronic fabrication techniques, something like this could be brought in for less than a grand street price. Obviously nothing point-to-point wired, that would send it through the roof.

Of course, the $64,000 question is whether or not there's a big enough market for something like this. I tend to doubt it, but if it was done correctly, I would consider something like this. Without design changes, even the smaller version would be quite a bit heavier than, let's say, a Nashville 112. I think it would be necessary to really think about how to economize on weight. Pine or birch construction, no particle or die board (it's heavy), switch-mode power supply for the pedal steel side, lightweight Deluxe-Reverb sized power transformer for the guitar side. It would pretty much have to be two amps in one box, sharing the same speaker but otherwise optimized for each.

Edited to add - David Doggett's suggestion of an attenuated two-channel tube amp is reasonable. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that would target a very big audience. I think most of us would be put off by the weight, the price, and the need to use attenuation. I think it's pretty clear that there's a strong market for solid-state pedal steel amps - the biggest seller out there is no doubt the NV 112. The problem, to me, is not in the pedal steel side, but the guitar side.

Naturally, all of this is just my take.

David Doggett · Posted 7 Jun 2009 9:55 am

What's wrong with attenuation? Many of the better tube guitar amps have it these days. It allows you to get both preamp and power tube bloom and distortion (the holy grail of guitar tube mavens) at various volumes for various venues. As long as the tubes are there, why not use them for both the guitar and steel channel. A separate preamp channel for steel might clean up that channel even enough for steelers accustomed to solid state. I've played all-tube bass amps that were too clean for my taste for steel. I don't know that a high wattage tube power section would be any heavier than a medium watt tube power section plus a solid-state power section.

Somehow for me, putting two complete amps (pre and power) in a single very heavy cabinet is not necessarily preferable to two separate amps. Another solution is to stack two separate heads on top of a jointly used speaker cab.

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

James Collett · From: San Dimas, CA

Hmm... interesting... the only dilemna I had forseen for such an idea would be the market...

So maybe it's just better for me to stop grumbling and lug two amps when I play Wink

_________________
James Collett

Dan Tyack · From: Olympia, WA USA

Yeah, James, stop kvetching.

I don't play a lick of guitar, but I like guitarish response from amps...

If I need to both do good sounding overdrive (spanking a tube output stage) and clean pedal steel, I use a great sounding tube amp (eg my THD Bivalve or Univalve) running into a speaker but also into a transistor amp (from the line out of the THDs) into a second speaker. I can get squeaky clean through the dirtyest sound at any volume.

It does not save on weight, however.

David Doggett · Posted 7 Jun 2009 9:22 pm

If it's any consolation, according to features and interviews in Guitar Player, lots of top guitar players bring two or more amps for gigs and studio work, and that's just for one instrument. Confused

Since the amp and speaker are really part of an electric instrument, it really shouldn't seem that strange to have a dedicated amp for each instrument, if you play two. Heck, I don't play any guitar at gigs, but I'd like to have two amps just to get two different tones out of my steel, one for dirty blues and rock, and one for clean country and jazz (I like to play with eclectic groups). I get the dirty stuff with a stomp box now. But if I was more successful and had bigger gigs, I might bring two amps. Course it would help if there were roadies.

Kevin Hatton · From: Buffalo, N.Y.

The market is too small for such a product.

John Billings · From: Ohio, USA

Hmmmmm,,,is right! I use a cold-biased Twin for steel. I wonder if one could modify the amp with a switch and electronics that would turn off two of the 6L6's, and maybe change the bias on the remaining two, for the guitar channel??? Or would you have to also have a different output Xformer????

Ben Jones · From: Seattle, Washington, USA

I dont necessarily think this amp would be exactly what you are talking about in this thread but are any of you familiar with the fender cyber twin?

basically amp modeling with real tubes. I have yet to hear one in the flesh. cool concept tho.

My guild thunderbass (late 60's?) amp has a channel marked "bass" and another marked "guitar" and there are two separate preamp boards in there.

Im getting a pretty good guitar and steel sound from my evans. The guitar sound was horribe till I got a tube preamp pedal (duncan twin tube classic). so thats a nice lightweight solution. evans head is 27 lbs. ultralight cab w/ neo speaker weighs almost nothing. My showman still destroys it for guitar, but I was surprised to be able to pull passable guitar tones from an SS amp.

anyway, whos tried a cybertwin?

Tim Whitlock · From: Colorado, USA

For small - medium venues John Billings hit the nail on the head. My Twin Reverb is modified with a switch to cut out two of the 6L6's and also has the reverb mod so it's on both channels. The JBL D-130F sounds great for both steel and Tele.

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

To my tastes, the Duncan Twin Tube Classic pulls better than passable distortion sounds for guitar into practically any clean amp I've tried it into. But better yet is to run it into a modeler (I use a Pod) - the Pod gives better than passable clean tube-type sounds into a clean amp, and then goosing it up with the SDTTC sounds very good.

But I can't live with the clean tone of something like a Tele or Strat straight into a clean pedal steel amp. When I spank 'em, that setup is much too shrill for my tastes. But they're perfect for, let's say, a classic jazz guitar sound using a Gibson-style humbucker with the tone rolled down.

I had an old beat-up SF Twin Reverb chassis that could switch out a push-pull pair of 6L6's in a Twin Reverb and disconnect a speaker to lower the volume further and maintain the proper output impedance. I used an A/B switch to change into a revoiced "Normal" channel which had the reverb-on-both-channels mod. It worked pretty well, although the switching wasn't sophisticated enough to switch on-the-fly during a song. It would be a good idea to integrate all this plus a bias change (to make it hotter for guitar) into a single switch that could be used on-the-fly, but I never took it that far. But honestly - I still prefer a Deluxe or Vibrolux Reverb for spankin' Tele or Strat.

I think one of the problems with marketing this type of double-amp design is that there are ways to handle guitar/steel double-duty with a single amp now. Add that to the fact that the market would be small, I think it's no-go for anybody but a small boutique builder.

I tried a Cyber-Twin a few times. It was OK, but I'd just as soon have my Pod into whatever clean amp. Just my take. I think most players prefer having their modeling separate from the amp. Then, if you decide you want to upgrade the technology, you just replace that little unit. Not to mention the fact that modelers can realistically be used straight to recording or straight into a PA. I always have my Pod with me for emergencies - amp breaks down, whatever.

Ben Jones · From: Seattle, Washington, USA

Cool, thanks for the feedback on the cybertwin Dave.

What's interesting to me about that amp is that it is an entirely different take on modeling. Instead of digitally modeling amps, they are physically modeling them inside a single cab using tubes, varrying the tone stacks ,even the order of components. Not sure but as for going direct and recording, I would guess this high tech cybertwin has a direct line out, maybe even an xlr out for pa too?

bottom line was what you heard tho. if it wasnt exciting, it just wasnt. i havent heard em yet. I am just excited by the idea of a physical modeling system.

Dave Harmonson · From: Seattle, Wa

Depending on the gig I often use my silver face Vibrosonic for both Steel and guiatr. I like having a clean sound available for my guitar. I run my guitar through a boss ME-50 multi-effects unit that has an overdrive setting that I like. If you don't need to be too loud a Fender Deluxe Reverb or Vibrolux will also handle both quite nicely. At a lower volume gig I'll usually go ahead and bring my Blues Junior for the guitar and play steel through my Evans. I played guitar thru Twins for many years and I still like being able to smack a big E chord and have it good and clean.

John Billings · From: Ohio, USA

Well, Dave, with my suggestion, you would have , sorta, two amps for the guitar channel. A full force Twin, and the same Twin with only two power tubes. You could choose your weapon with a footswitch. I'd put reverb to both channels, and play my Tele through the vibrate-oh! channel.

Edit: BTW, a Twin with a 15 is a great amp for Baritone Guitar!

Tim Whitlock · From: Colorado, USA

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

John, as I said, I had an amp set up like this about 10 years ago - a beater Twin Reverb chassis that would switch out one push-pull pair, one speaker (to give the proper 8 ohm matching output impedance), and a modded "Normal" channel voiced a bit differently with reverb on the channel. The only thing it didn't do was switch to a hotter bias, but I could adjust the bias manually, and I tried it at a range of bias levels.

This sounded good, but I still significantly preferred my Deluxe or Vibrolux Reverbs for guitar. If the low-power channel had been all I wanted, I would have gone to the trouble of putting a good switching system in there to do it all at once. But a Twin Reverb is not exactly a 4-6L6 version of those amps - there are differences like B+ voltage and output transformer. One could give each channel a separate output transformer, but this seems to be pushing it to me. Still, I completely agree that this is a perfectly valid solution to the problem we're discussing here.

John Billings · From: Ohio, USA

Dave, did you use a relay for the switching? Also my Twin has a single 15, so I can't switch off a speaker. Is that necessary? I've heard that some leeway is, although not desirable, not deadly either?????

James Jacoby · From: Ohio, USA

I read all the posts in this topic, with great interest, because I too, am trying to find an amp, that sounds good, with a steel or guitar, with enough clean volume, but small and light enough to be easy on my 70 year old back! If I'm playing in a place, where I don't need a lot of volume, why carry the heavy stuff? I go to a lot of steel guitar jams, and as of late, I've been playing some lead guitar. For most places, my Nashville 400 just does'nt quite get it for lead, and we all know how heavy those Black Widow 15s are! Next time out, I'm going to try out a Peavey Studio Pro 112 (Transtube Series) It sounds great, at home in my music room, but I have no idea how it will sound, out on stage. Also, I'm one of those, who is completely satisfied with solid state, and I bought the amp, used and the book was gone. I heard, somewhere inside, is a 12AX7. I haven't used a tube amp in decades, because of the expense, and hassle. Does anyone out there, have any insite on this little amp? If there is a tube inside, I'ts out of sight up in the chassis. Does'nt seem like they would put a tube, with all that heat, up inside, would they? I have lots of amps, of different sizes, but they get heavier, every year!! Muttering

I almost never, set up my steel and lead guitar together, so at steel jams, I can just write down my settings for lead or steel. The amp is real light so I hope it does the job!---Jake---

David Doggett · Posted 8 Jun 2009 4:24 pm

James, the Peavey website has most user manuals available for display as pdf.

Forum Index > Electronics	Goto page 1, 2 Next	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic