tehuk
Member
Any news? Will it ever see the light of day?
Beagle1
New member
Yes, I'd like to know too. Although, I think that was Jeff's project and with him departing, I'm not sure where it stands. I would bet all the time/energy is going now towards getting the E2 and the Armageddon out the door. If the power amp is still in progress, I'm guessing that realistically it wouldn't be ready to show until next year at NAMM.
I would still buy an official Egnater power amp though, especially if it's 1U. I love my Randall RT2-50, but it is an absolute beast to carry and a lot of times I don't need that much power. Really, the only competition out there in the 1U tube power amp space is the Mesa 20/20 and it has some limitations (e.g. cannot be run bridged in mono). An E2 and a 1U power amp would make a really versatile and highly portable combo!
I would still buy an official Egnater power amp though, especially if it's 1U. I love my Randall RT2-50, but it is an absolute beast to carry and a lot of times I don't need that much power. Really, the only competition out there in the 1U tube power amp space is the Mesa 20/20 and it has some limitations (e.g. cannot be run bridged in mono). An E2 and a 1U power amp would make a really versatile and highly portable combo!
tehuk
Member
IMO 1U is the best feature. I tried a Marshall 20/20 with my RM4 but it didn't have the same "punch" that the 9100 has. The RT2 is great but its a bitch to carry sometimes.
marvcus
Well-known member
Yeah, I think Jeff was responding to popular forum demand. I'm not even sure if Bruce thinks
this is a viable idea or not -- it may not see the light of day. Especially since Jeff was talking about putting some "never before seen" features in there.
If it is a go, it will be awhile...
this is a viable idea or not -- it may not see the light of day. Especially since Jeff was talking about putting some "never before seen" features in there.
If it is a go, it will be awhile...
B
bruce egnater
New member
Not forgotten, just moved down the list for now. The biggest issue is the flat pack transformers. I have designed and tested them but we have yet to implement them into the design. Maybe later this year I hope. Actually I have a question. What is the "maximum" depth (front to rear) that you guys can live with? Not what you would "like" to see or what you think would be nice. I need to know what my absolute limit is to determine if this is truly feasible. Space is definitely an issue in the single space package.
tehuk
Member
I think 16 inches would be the max for me.
Beagle1
New member
Thanks for the update, Bruce! Glad to hear it's still a possibility. I can totally understand there must be some technical limitations in terms of what you can do in a 1U tube power amp. I agree with tehuk that 16 inches would be about the max. That is about the depth of the SKB racks I use and my M4, IE-4 and RT2-50 all fit comfortably inside them, so I wouldn't want to go any deeper. Something else maybe to consider...I know Jeff had originally mentioned the amp would be 30 watts a side stereo or 60 watts bridged mono. To keep things on the light side and save space, I personally would be happy with a single channel power amp (no stereo) at around 30 watts. If I need stereo or more watts, than I'd break out the Randall RT. But honestly most sound guys prefer to deal with a mono feed and mic the cab...so a power section along the lines of a Rebel 30 might be just enough to cover most small and medium size gigs. In fact, I must admit I've seriously considered just getting an R30 head and then use it as a power amp for my M4. But a 1U rack form would be so much more convenient...less stuff to carry. Anyway, just a thought. Thanks!!!
R
rockridge98
Member
Glad to hear its still in the works. I would be fine as long as it fits in a standard SKB type rack (17").bruce egnater":fsxjos7a said:
As far as mono vs stereo, I would only buy it if stereo, to me that is the main reason to go with a rack system.
aeroic
Active member
bruce egnater":xx74n4r2 said:
Needs to fit in a standard effects rack. Those are 14" deep. So I'd say no more than 12"
Eric
Chris R
New member
Nice to hear this is still on your mind Bruce.
Truth be told, I'd be more than happy with a 2u design using the M4 chassis that contains the power section of the Mod50... This way, those who want the all in one head could choose the Mod50. Those who want to keep it rack based could choose the M4 or E2 into the power section. If it could be done, possibly retaining relatively the same sound/feel/mojo/relative weight of the Egnater modular line regardless of what formula is used to deliver the sound.
Not to push this way off-topic... Just saying.
Truth be told, I'd be more than happy with a 2u design using the M4 chassis that contains the power section of the Mod50... This way, those who want the all in one head could choose the Mod50. Those who want to keep it rack based could choose the M4 or E2 into the power section. If it could be done, possibly retaining relatively the same sound/feel/mojo/relative weight of the Egnater modular line regardless of what formula is used to deliver the sound.
Not to push this way off-topic... Just saying.
Resonant Alien
New member
Chris R":2jlj1tnu said:
Having a 2RU but not-very-deep unit would be much preferable to me than a 1RU but waaay deep unit. I agree with Eric - it needs to fit in a standard 14" deep effects rack - it shouldn't require the deeper 19" racks. The 14" deep racks are about as big as you can get and still have it sitting on top of a cabinet without looking completely silly - or being completely unstable.Keeping it shallow (max 13") and single channel would be my vote for sure - single channel is nice just from a weight perspective.
3 Mile Stone
New member
Yea I don't really think it's such a biggy that it's 2U. It's really more about weight. A shallow, light weight 30 watt per side unit I think would be fine. But that's just me. I'm not even really sure I am in the market, but if put the power section of the MOD 50 in stereo/mono config and then rolled out the E2 ... things could change for me. 
It would be Rebel 30, E2, Power Amp, TM2X12 for me.
It would be Rebel 30, E2, Power Amp, TM2X12 for me.
Resonant Alien
New member
I'm guessing the motivation for a 1RU design would be so that you could have an E2, the power amp, a 1RU FX unit and a 1RU power conditioner all in a 4RU rack. That would certainly be a nice compact little package with everything you need in 4 spaces. But, if that comes at the cost of having to go from a 14" deep FX rack to a 19" deep standard rack, it wouldn't be so nice if you wanted to set it on a cabinet (maybe most people wouldn't put it on top of a cab, but this is how I would envision using it).
R
rockridge98
Member
I would love to be able to show up at a small gig with a 2 space rack (E2 and Egnater power amp),3 Mile Stone":14d6643m said:Yea I don't really think it's such a biggy that it's 2U. It's really more about weight. A shallow, light weight 30 watt per side unit I think would be fine. But that's just me. I'm not even really sure I am in the market, but if put the power section of the MOD 50 in stereo/mono config and then rolled out the E2 ... things could change for me.
a stereo 2x12 (or even 2x10) cab and a small floorboard on a single handtruck run,
and blow everyone away with my tone.
If I have to go with a 2 space tube power amp, then I would need a good reason to replace my Randall RT250,
and just sounding a little better isn't it. It would have to be significantly lighter and still tube.
Randall RT250 is 40lb, VHT/Fryette 2502 is 32lb, so it would have to be in the 20-25lb range....
..and yes I have owned a Mesa 20/20, not that impressed with the tone and hated the fan noise from hell.
tehuk
Member
rockridge98":115sx0ww said:
+1
If it was 2U I would just stick with my RT2.
jlbaxe
Banned
Active member
14 inches deep. Any deeper affects running the power cord and input jacks, having to unhook it just to put the back cover on using a standard 16 inch rack case.
J
jasco
New member
jlbaxe":28ccxv5o said:
Agreed - 14" sounds about right. I think the triaxis is 14.3" and I recall it being about as long as you would want anything in a guitar rack, and if I recall correctly sometimes I had to unplug jacks for SKB-style shallow racks. As for moving to 2U that negates the whole point - I currently use a MESA 20/20 since I simply can't add any more rack spaces and still be able to lift my rack by myself and I don't need any more power than 20watts. Not to say there wouldn't be a market for a tricked out Egnater 2U - but I think that's a different market and one that is already relatively competitive, including the Eggie-designed Randall.
As for stereo vs. mono - like the vast majority of guitarists I never run stereo live (both because I don't need stereo and because it's not practical to get it mic'd up to the PA and properly mixed in most settings in which I play), so having two channels is a benefit only if I can make them sound different. And most guitarists who have the luxury of running stereo also have the luxury of roadies and more space and therefore don't need to limit themselves to a compact, lightweight amp.
Although having different power tubes for each channel would be ideal, even having different voicings using the same tube set would be awesome. After experimenting over the last few years, I'm convinced that power tube types don't necessarily mean as much as most people assume. For example, IMHO an EL84 power section doesn't necessarily sound like an AC15 and an EL34 doesn't necessarily sound like a plexi! I suspect that having remotely switchable feedback attenuation controls and/or power scaling or other voicing/tone-affecting controls would be of more value to most guitarists (whether they think so or not!) than being able to run different tube types from the same amp. I'd love to have the flexibility of the power section of my Stephenson 40-watter (one power amp with selectable tubes, variable feedback attenuation control (to me this is the 'secret' between vintage voicing and more modern sounds . . . ), variable power scaling) in a one-space rackmount amp so I can go from squishy/saggy AC15/tweed deluxe type tones to plexi type tones on the fly, but if I had to give up one of the F.A.T., scaling, or tube selection controls, I'd give up the tube selection (and I'd probably go with EL34s if I had to choose just one, though I suspect that EL84s are far more feasible in a one-space unit).
And while we're talking about the 'perfect power amp' - it would be ideal to have the ability to either (i) run a different cab from each 'channel' (e.g., a 4x12 on one and an open-back 1x12 or 2x12 on the other), or (ii) run them both into one cab (i.e., switching between two different power amp channels into the same cab).
All that said, just having a one-spacer that has the features of the MESA 20/20 but better/different tone I suspect would have a good market given the dearth of one-space rack-mount power amps out there. I'd buy it!
bhuard75
Techdeath’s Resident Asshole Student
F the size. give me a power amp thats gonna wipe the floor with everything thats available out there now. i'm not buying a piece of gear for convenience, i'm buying because it sounds good and is better than what i got now.
3 Mile Stone
New member
Actually ... pretty good points on all posts here.
K
Klark
Member
Agreed.bhuard75":2pjd65mt said:
I believe 14" depth to be the ideal size. Sure, 12" would be nice because it's compact and allows you to use a standard rack, but IMO, if you're adding a power amp to your rack, it's not unreasonable to figure you're going to need a slightly deeper rack. And it's not like the deeper racks are unavailable.. GC stocks Road Ready UED (Effects) racks, and the UAD (Amplifer) racks.
If you make the depth 16", people will automatically think it's a beast, even if it's less weight than a RT2/50 or VHT.