Acoustic Amp: Ultrasound vs. Roland

[guitar2adam]

I'm looking to buy an acoustic amp. And I think I've narrowed it down to the Ultrasound DS (4 or PowerStack) and the Roland AC-90. I will be using it for mostly small venues. I will use this amp for both my acoustic guitars and my ukulele. I just want to know if anyone has any advice or experience with these amps because I cannot make up my mind. I really want a reliable amp that will last me a really long time and maintain pure acoustic tone. Please help me! Thanks.
-Adam

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by guitar2adam

I'm looking to buy an acoustic amp. And I think I've narrowed it down to the Ultrasound DS (4 or PowerStack) and the Roland AC-90. I will be using it for mostly small venues. I will use this amp for both my acoustic guitars and my ukulele. I just want to know if anyone has any advice or experience with these amps because I cannot make up my mind. I really want a reliable amp that will last me a really long time and maintain pure acoustic tone. Please help me! Thanks.
-Adam

Hi Adam...
When I was looking for a small amp for doing live work, I tried about everything out there (except Rivera), and the AER were hands down the best, and then the UltraSound over Roland, Marshall, Fender, Behringer etc.

They sound less like a guitar playing through an amp and more like a guitar only bigger. I have no issues with the Roland, but they are just not as good sounding nor as light as my UltraSounds.

For me the difference really comes in are of natural sounding reproduction. We also sing through our amps for coffeehouse venues, and the UltraSound is great at that. The DS4 has enough power to cover a small room by itself, and UltraSounds work well as stage amps which interface with PA systems (XLR output and 1/4'').

I like plugging into other people's gear with my rigs, and still have not found the Fishman Loudbox, the SWR, GenzBenz, Marshall, Fender or Crate that match the tone quality and portability of the UltraSounds.

[rmyAddison]

I agree that the Roland (to my ears) falls into category of amps that add some coloration (Fender, Marshall) but I place the Ultrasound right behind Genz Benz and AER.

I do not like the smaller GB's as much (at some price points I would prefer the Ultrasounds) but those Shenandoah's with the 12" drivers and compression horns are wonderful (Shen 150, 200 and Shen Pro w/tube premaps). AER is every bit as good but not as feature rich especially if you are using one channel vocal and one guitar.

If you are limiting yourself to Ultrasound and Roland, then IMO Ultrasound wins.

[sharkydude50]

I A/B'ed the Roland AC60 & the UltraSound AG50DS4 when I was looking for an acoustic amp. The Ultra was the hands down winner.

[bluende]

If you're not 100% set on either the Roland or Ultrasound, I'd look into the Schertler David (80 watts) or the AER Alpha (40 watts). Both very nice

Also, I'm not sure if it matters to you, but neither of the Ultrasounds you mentioned (DS4 or powerstack) provide full 48v phantom power on the XLR inputs).

[MattM]

I haven't played the 90, but Ultrasound handily beats the AC-60.

[TRW1]

I'll probably be in the minority here, but I've owned both the Roland and Ultrasound amps. The Ultrasound has maybe a bit more natural sound for guitar, but if you're adding a vocal mic the Roland has (to me) the superior sound. In fact, my vocals sound better through the Roland than through my Mackie PA. The guitar sound can be dialed in to sound quite nice, though I don't like the fact that effects are shared on both channels (if you add reverb or delay, the same amount is applied to both channels). Also, the ability to mount the Roland on a speaker stand is a big plus if you're trying to gig with just the amp.

The best thing is to play your guitar and mic through both if you can find them. Ultrasounds are a bit scarce in my neighborhood, but the Rolands are in all the chain stores (GC, Sam Ash, etc.).

[sharkydude50]

Originally Posted by bluende

...but neither of the Ultrasounds you mentioned (DS4 or powerstack) provide full 48v phantom power on the XLR inputs).

Not true. The DS4 does have 48v phantom power for XLR inputs

[bluende]

Originally Posted by sharkydude50

Not true. The DS4 does have 48v phantom power for XLR inputs

I based my comment on the Ultrasound DS4 manual, which reads as follows:

"** PHANTOM POWER – An internal phantom power source (13.6 volts) is provided for use with condenser mics. This power source is on at all times and does not affect the standard operation of the amp, even when a condenser mic is not used. We use the DIN 45-596-P12 volt standard which will operate virtually all of the live sound reinforcement condenser microphones on the market. Some “boutique” externally biased condenser mics will not be compatible and will require 48 volt phantom power."

It seems to indicate that they are providing ~14 volts of phantom power on their XLR inputs, but I could be wrong... and, it may be of no importance to the OP. Ultrasound obviously makes nice amps.

[Acoustic Dano]

Feature aside, the Ultrasound just flat (pun intended) sounds better than the Roland. Remember, you want an acoustic amp to sound like your guitar (if you like the way your guitar sounds unplugged) sounds. In other words NO acoustic coloration at all! Most electric git amps w/dsp can make a solid body electric sound like everything between a bird and a locomotive. And that's OK if that is your preference, but you don't want that for your big buck Martin.

I have owned both, and to my ears the Ultrasound DS4 allows you to hear the entire frequency spectrum of your guitar whereas the Roland sounds too "tinny" to me, albiet nice chorus if you don't overdo it.

I am sure there are many Roland advocates out there who will disagree, but having both to A-B in my house left me convinced. You will probably not use many of the effects, but they are there if you want em'. The only negative to the Ultrasound that I have noticed is that the input wants to see a "Hot" signal from your git to get the most undistorted volume, but a small external preamp will fix that if it turns out to be an issue. Along with internal Fishman pre-amped acoustics I have a Little Martin with K&K Pure Western Mini's installed, and it works fine with no external pre-amp at all! Part of which is due to the 1megaohm input impedence on channel 2 that the K&K's wants to see!

As far as the 13.6v phantom power goes (and it is 13.6v btw), it will work with almost all condensor mics on the market. I use an inexpensive Shure PG-81 and it works great for my classical (if I sit still). Even if it didn't, it has a built in battery feature for those times you want to mic into a board or another amp w/o phantom power available The Shure SM-81 is considered the defacto standard for classical micing, but not worth the 4 times price differential in my book, and no internal PP or on/off switch either.

As always, YMMV, but remember.....what is best for me is not necessarily the best for you......or anyone else for that matter!

How's that for a disclaimer?.....and I'm not even a Lawyer!

Regards,

Acoustic Dano

[cotten]

I chose the DS4.

cotten

[buzzardwhiskey]

One has to be careful here. The Roland AC60 sounds different than the AC90.

When I chose the Ultrasound DS4, it was better than the AC60. Though this a very subjective "better". I can absolutely see why some would like the AC60. For me, the Ultrasound is less dark and easier to quickly make good sounds pour out.

However, the AC90 "fixes" many of the AC60 shortcomings. It's not as dark. And it's very loud (louder than the DS4). And it has nice connections and is pole mountable.

The decision for me whether to buy a DS4 or AC90 is not as easy as the DS4/AC60.

[Acoustic Dano]

Originally Posted by buzzardwhiskey

One has to be careful here. The Roland AC60 sounds different than the AC90.

When I chose the Ultrasound DS4, it was better than the AC60. Though this a very subjective "better". I can absolutely see why some would like the AC60. For me, the Ultrasound is less dark and easier to quickly make good sounds pour out.

However, the AC90 "fixes" many of the AC60 shortcomings. It's not as dark. And it's very loud (louder than the DS4). And it has nice connections and is pole mountable.

The decision for me whether to buy a DS4 or AC90 is not as easy as the DS4/AC60.

Possibly true as stated, I have not tried the AC90 yet, but I understand it is much improved over the AC60.

I failed to mention I also have the 50w powered extension box (Ultrasound) and it REALLY increases the output and dispersion of the system. Unfortunately it is no longer offered by Ultrasound, but available on E-Bay currently for 1/3 the original price. Having two boxes really helps! It increases the total wattage to 100w RMS. You have to double your wattage to realize a doubling in output!

I also installed pole mounts on both units to get em' in the air. That, and the foot switch for the DSP effects allow me to "leave it alone" during gigs. And the two boxes are still less expensive than the AC90. If you want to make changes mid set you can stick a mini mixer in line with either system to have control at you fingertips, and never leave your stool, although I have not had that need

Let's face it, both are great amps and mini PA's, so flip a coin, or better yet listen to em' both in an A-B situation if possible. Then you can make your own decision like I did.

Good luck either way!

Dano

[JCW308]

I have owned both and the Roland has much more coloration and hiss than the Ultrasound. The Roland's effects may be more configurable though.

[biggs2]

Unless you think you have tried all the amps that are within your budget, I would not recommend that you limit your choices to just these two amps. In doing so, you may be missing out on some great amps that might better suit your needs. AER, Shertler David, Genz Benz (serveral nice choices here) and SWR (CA Blonde II or Strawberry blond) just to name a few.

In some ways, your choice of amp may be more important than your guitar. I would recommend that you take your time and try as many amps as you possibly can using your own guitar(s).