Sounds great! How large is that amp and how much does it weight?EXPcustom":3lfi2qs4 said: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":389u66tj said:Sounds great! How large is that amp and how much does it weight?EXPcustom":389u66tj said: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":2hr2q6zl said:I'm actually going to move into Lunchbox sized amps in future, as they're lighter and therefore easier to transport.
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!panhead":31mz6ai1 said:Im talking function wise and go dissect something else Jesussleewell2":31mz6ai1 said:yeah i always say something sucks balls when i mean to say it sounds good.
bro how fucking high are you right now?
Why the hell are you so worried about it.Speeddemon":8bpwdi4p said: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!panhead":8bpwdi4p said:Im talking function wise and go dissect something else Jesussleewell2":8bpwdi4p said:yeah i always say something sucks balls when i mean to say it sounds good.
bro how fucking high are you right now?
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.
EXPcustom":1ooxx69x said: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.
sleewell2":3uxv3u3o said: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.
panhead":2lkmkpzw said:I got 2 73 superlead halfstacks I bought in 1980. Im not worried about all other shit
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.MistaGuitah":cpj8ezvh said: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'm not worried at all, bro.panhead":1m4qy29n said:Why the hell are you so worried about it.Speeddemon":1m4qy29n said: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!panhead":1m4qy29n said:Im talking function wise and go dissect something else Jesussleewell2":1m4qy29n said:yeah i always say something sucks balls when i mean to say it sounds good.
bro how fucking high are you right now?
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.
Ah, that's a good size. And to mention that it has 6L6s as power tubes is cool.EXPcustom":1f61prar said: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.
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":1f61prar said: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":3i9er86j said:I'm not worried at all, bro.panhead":3i9er86j said:Why the hell are you so worried about it.Speeddemon":3i9er86j said: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!panhead":3i9er86j said:Im talking function wise and go dissect something else Jesussleewell2":3i9er86j said:yeah i always say something sucks balls when i mean to say it sounds good.
bro how fucking high are you right now?
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.
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.