The Lunchbox Amp Poll

[EXPcustom]

If you guys like me please vote that they are cheap ghetto rigs.

In the mean time here is a mean lunch box amp that is loud enough for rehearsing with a band.

 

[Kyss]

If you guys like me please vote that they are cheap ghetto rigs.

In the mean time here is a mean lunch box amp that is loud enough for rehearsing with a band.

Sounds great! How large is that amp and how much does it weight?

 

[SoooRad]

Owned a Super Drive 18, couldn't keep up volume wise at band practice.

Never again. (Though I would love to try a Super Drive 45 or 80)

 

[EXPcustom]

If you guys like me please vote that they are cheap ghetto rigs.

In the mean time here is a mean lunch box amp that is loud enough for rehearsing with a band.

Sounds great! How large is that amp and how much does it weight?

I don't have the amp in front of me but trust me it's a "lunch box" It's light and it's sitting on a 4x12 in the video so you can figure out scale. I remember when I shipped it, it was around 24 pounds and Marshalls that I ship tend to be around 50 pounds. I am going by shipping weight with box not actual amp weight.

 

[Zachman]

I'm actually going to move into Lunchbox sized amps in future, as they're lighter and therefore easier to transport.

Solid state amps are generally lighter than their tube counter-parts, as well.

Moving Trucks, Cargo Vans, Dollys, Carts, helpful band members and Roadies make things easier to transport too.

 

[Speeddemon]

yeah i always say something sucks balls when i mean to say it sounds good.

bro how fucking high are you right now?

Im talking function wise and go dissect something else Jesus

Dude, you're the one dismissing a whole array of amps -some of which with quite a big feature/function set- based on a single bad experience 20 years ago!
You're just trying to wiggle your way out of your own blunt statement, by suddenly applying new, previously unmentioned rules.
"They suck". That's all you said. Not "The single one I tried aeons ago suckED", but "they suck". Present tense, whole group, nothing about needing specific functions.

You think amp technology didn't do anything in the past 20 years? Internal loadboxes, IR support, multi-channel switchers under 16lbs...

If you're miffed that we're the ones being semantic about this, perhaps try to formulate your broad-strokes statements better.

 

[panhead]

yeah i always say something sucks balls when i mean to say it sounds good.

bro how fucking high are you right now?

Im talking function wise and go dissect something else Jesus

Dude, you're the one dismissing a whole array of amps -some of which with quite a big feature/function set- based on a single bad experience 20 years ago!
You're just trying to wiggle your way out of your own blunt statement, by suddenly applying new, previously unmentioned rules.
"They suck". That's all you said. Not "The single one I tried aeons ago suckED", but "they suck". Present tense, whole group, nothing about needing specific functions.

You think amp technology didn't do anything in the past 20 years? Internal loadboxes, IR support, multi-channel switchers under 16lbs...

If you're miffed that we're the ones being semantic about this, perhaps try to formulate your broad-strokes statements better.

Why the hell are you so worried about it.

 

[panhead]

I got 2 73 superlead halfstacks I bought in 1980. Im not worried about all other shit

 

[panhead]

Oh and They suck was an option on the poll. So there ya go

 

[errrrrl]

The only lunchbox sized amp that I felt sounded big thru a 4x12 was the PRS MT15. But I'd still rather use the 100 watters if better tone was the goal.

 

[Zachman]

If you guys like me please vote that they are cheap ghetto rigs.

In the mean time here is a mean lunch box amp that is loud enough for rehearsing with a band.

NICELY done! Sounds like Mark C's playing. Is that you? Shredding none the less.

My lunchbox amp is more of a buffet banquette in terms of size.

In this clip the 1st half is messing with clean tones and the 2nd half is experimenting w/ VH1 tones:

https://soundcloud.com/mentoneman/zachrack-10-30-16

 

[sleewell2]

lunchbox amps in general confuse me but i get why they are popular these days and don't hate them.


a 50 or 100 watt amp with a decent master is perfect for band settings and you can make them work at home too.

the really small ones with baby tubes start to sound really grating on my hears after a while and as others have mentioned loud cleans are usually tough to get.

the bigger ones are priced to the point where I would just grab a used 50 watter for about the same price or less. seriously what is the difference between 30-35 and 50 watts? you might notice at home but i doubt you would in most rock/metal bands.


i think amp makers saw an opening with an aging population who would pay for the smaller head shell and they ran with it. which i have no problem with them figuring out new ways to make money. its like hey do we make another 100 watter or build an amp for a fraction of the cost but still get top dollar for it? its easier for a consumer to say well i have several 100 watters, maybe i should try a 20 or 30 and i can justify it by saying its easier to carry and costs a little less.

 

[Zachman]

lunchbox amps in general confuse me but i get why they are popular these days and don't hate them.


a 50 or 100 watt amp with a decent master is perfect for band settings and you can make them work at home too.

the really small ones with baby tubes start to sound really grating on my hears after a while and as others have mentioned loud cleans are usually tough to get.

the bigger ones are priced to the point where I would just grab a used 50 watter for about the same price or less. seriously what is the difference between 30-35 and 50 watts? you might notice at home but i doubt you would in most rock/metal bands.


i think amp makers saw an opening with an aging population who would pay for the smaller head shell and they ran with it. which i have no problem with them figuring out new ways to make money. its like hey do we make another 100 watter or build an amp for a fraction of the cost but still get top dollar for it? its easier for a consumer to say well i have several 100 watters, maybe i should try a 20 or 30 and i can justify it by saying its easier to carry and costs a little less.

THIS!!! 100%

 

[Zachman]

I got 2 73 superlead halfstacks I bought in 1980. Im not worried about all other shit

Oh yes! Nice...

If it ain't broke... Nothing to fix

 

[Goat]

Well, there seems to be some rigorous debate that devolved into personal insults because of apparent disdain for lunchbox amps so it seems like it would be best settled by a poll. In another thread, a few guys like Zachman, swamptrashstompboxes, EXPcustom had some pretty derogatory things to say about my new lower-wattage rig and lunchbox amps in general, so maybe it's good to get some wider, more informed opinions on the topic. Therefore, based on some of their criticism, I crafted the following poll.

I've been playing since '78. Per my experience, I find low watt EL84 and 6V6 NMV amplifiers preferable for practice, and recording. I've never played a setting that required anything larger than 50 (tube) watts. 100 watts isn't much louder, actually. For MV play, I use a very small 1987 Marshall SJ 2554 combo that kicks-ass! Yeah... lunchbox amps are just fine.

Here are a couple of fabulous sounding 10 watt amplifiers. Go to time marker 14:00 to begin amp demo.

 

[blackba]

I have a two lunch box amps. The Grandfather of all lunchbox amps, the Masco MA50 which is a lunchbox sized PA head from the 40's converted to a guitar amp. Its also one of my heaviest amps.

My other is a Mesa TA15 that I really like and do gig with. Whenever I had put the TA15 up against its bigger amp brothers, the bigger amps have always one. So you might ask why I still have it, use it, and recommend it. Well, I like what it brings to the table and with a band I am okay giving up some thump. To me having a lunchbox amp and a bigger amp is like having a boom box and full sized stereo, both have their place.

When trying to keep the volume down, its interesting to hear the opinions on this, but to me it really comes down to a few questions.
- Is the volume adjustment at low volume levels easy to adjust or is the volume touchy?
- How does the amp sound at low volume levels?
- How does the amp sound at higher volume levels and how big of a difference is there from the low volume levels?

So you may have an amp that sounds great at low volumes, but is hard to control (touchy volume control) and also sounds significantly better at higher volumes. Depending on who you talk to about the above example, you might hear that this amps sounds great a low volumes or not so great. My marshall 2553 silver jubilee is a great example from my personal amp collection of this. sounds good at low volumes, but sounds so much better cranked. If I can maximize its sound at low volumes, then the volume becomes more touchy.

 

[Speeddemon]

yeah i always say something sucks balls when i mean to say it sounds good.

bro how fucking high are you right now?

Im talking function wise and go dissect something else Jesus

Dude, you're the one dismissing a whole array of amps -some of which with quite a big feature/function set- based on a single bad experience 20 years ago!
You're just trying to wiggle your way out of your own blunt statement, by suddenly applying new, previously unmentioned rules.
"They suck". That's all you said. Not "The single one I tried aeons ago suckED", but "they suck". Present tense, whole group, nothing about needing specific functions.

You think amp technology didn't do anything in the past 20 years? Internal loadboxes, IR support, multi-channel switchers under 16lbs...

If you're miffed that we're the ones being semantic about this, perhaps try to formulate your broad-strokes statements better.

Why the hell are you so worried about it.

I'm not worried at all, bro.
This is still a discussion forum, right? And in this topic we're discussing the merits of lunchbox amps.

As I said earlier, I prefer big glass/big iron for tone as well and that's why I'm focussing on that middle ground, where the heads are a smidge smaller (20 to 24" wide) and lighter (sub 32lbs), but still 2x EL34 or 2x 6L6 with big iron.
And believe me, my DC-5 has plenty of clean headroom and gets loud AF, yet it's far more manageable (weight wise) than my Mark IV was.

 

[Kyss]

I don't have the amp in front of me but trust me it's a "lunch box" It's light and it's sitting on a 4x12 in the video so you can figure out scale. I remember when I shipped it, it was around 24 pounds and Marshalls that I ship tend to be around 50 pounds. I am going by shipping weight with box not actual amp weight.

Ah, that's a good size. And to mention that it has 6L6s as power tubes is cool.

Solid state amps are generally lighter than their tube counter-parts, as well.

Moving Trucks, Cargo Vans, Dollys, Carts, helpful band members and Roadies make things easier to transport too.

True, but i'm not too fond of them Solid states. I would like to be able to carry an amp on my backpack in future, while still having them bigger tubes like EL34, 6L6 on it.

 

[Zachman]

yeah i always say something sucks balls when i mean to say it sounds good.

bro how fucking high are you right now?

Im talking function wise and go dissect something else Jesus

Dude, you're the one dismissing a whole array of amps -some of which with quite a big feature/function set- based on a single bad experience 20 years ago!
You're just trying to wiggle your way out of your own blunt statement, by suddenly applying new, previously unmentioned rules.
"They suck". That's all you said. Not "The single one I tried aeons ago suckED", but "they suck". Present tense, whole group, nothing about needing specific functions.

You think amp technology didn't do anything in the past 20 years? Internal loadboxes, IR support, multi-channel switchers under 16lbs...

If you're miffed that we're the ones being semantic about this, perhaps try to formulate your broad-strokes statements better.

Why the hell are you so worried about it.

I'm not worried at all, bro.
This is still a discussion forum, right? And in this topic we're discussing the merits of lunchbox amps.

As I said earlier, I prefer big glass/big iron for tone as well and that's why I'm focussing on that middle ground, where the heads are a smidge smaller (20 to 24" wide) and lighter (sub 32lbs), but still 2x EL34 or 2x 6L6 with big iron.
And believe me, my DC-5 has plenty of clean headroom and gets loud AF, yet it's far more manageable (weight wise) than my Mark IV was.

I know what you mean. My Boogie MKIII combo weighs as much as a tank, and it's heavier after the gig--when you're tired. I'd much rather wheel a half stack across a parking lot after a club gig, than to hand carry that bastard across the parking lot, so I use a roller cart when I use it.

 

[herewegoagain]

I probably ought to stay out of this, but I can't..

What exactly is the point of a 'lunch box' amp if you need a 2x12 or 4x10 cab to make it sound decent? Way back in the day, we called them 'Practice Amps'...Portability was the virtue

There is something to be said for head room..and with the amazing choices of OD pedals we have now, It seems silly (IMHO) to use the power of your amp as the limiting means for control of volume...a 40-50 watt tube amp is ideal for me...many people can pull it off low volume gigs with 100 watts or more

And then there is the amp simulator/IR stuff that already kicks the shit out of a cranked 'wittle' Princeton and this stuff is just gonna keep getting better and better