soloamp vs. loudbox performer

[royd]

Has anyone compared the soloamp with the loudbox performer? And if so, what are your thoughts. I'd be using it for guitar only in a band setting, not as a small "PA."

[Michael T]

Both are designed as self contained PA's, very clean balanced sound, I have owned the performer, not the solo amp. I've since sold it and got a Powered speaker PA set up.

If you're intent is just for an acoustic guitar I personally would suggest the ultrasound series acoustic amps. The loudbox was good but a bit sterile, the ultrasound was a bit warmer to my ear for acoustic reproduction.

[hdhoo73]

+1 for the Ultrasound over the Performer for acoustic only. If you are needing vocals also I would recommend the Performer, however. Sterile is a good way to describe the Performer while the Ultrasound sounds like an acoustic guitar...

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by royd

Has anyone compared the soloamp with the loudbox performer? And if so, what are your thoughts. I'd be using it for guitar only in a band setting, not as a small "PA."

Hi royd,

Thinking out loud, and I'll get to your concern in a moment, I have a Fishman Loudbox 100 that I think is a very clean acoustic-guitar/vocal portable PA amp. I also have a Mackie PA System: two SRM450 Powered Mains, with two SRM150 Monitors, fed by a Mackie DFX-12 twelve-channel mixer, so although I don't need a PA system, I've thought about purchasing a Fishman SoloAmp for its portability for small to medium gigs. I've done a quick audition of the SoloAmp using an available Martin JC-16RE Aura acoustic-electric guitar, and in the Guitar Center's room setting, I thought it sounded very good. Didn't try any vocals through it. My concern about purchasing a Fishman SoloAmp is that being that I already have a Fishman Loudbox 100, I can purchase another Fishman Loudbox 100 for a bit more than half the cost of a Fishman SoloAmp and have more versatility because I could use the two Fishman Loudbox 100s in a mono or stereo configuration depending on a room's configuration and probably have better coverage that a single Fishman SoloAmp. The weight of the two Loudbox 100s would be about 46 lbs. versus 35 lbs. for a single SoloAmp. Granted, the SoloAmp's weight includes its speaker stand and gigbag but for a few extra pounds of weight, two Fishman Loudbox 100s would give better sound dispersion than a single SoloAmp with the backup capabilty of having two Loudbox 100s should one of them quit during a gig.

If I was in a position of not having any equipment, I'd definitely choose a Fishman SoloAmp as my main small/medium venue system. I've heard nothing but good things about their tone! Versus a Fishman Loudbox Performer, purchasing a Fishman SoloAmp would enable you to immediately place it on its stand for projection versus the Loudbox Performer's usual floor position. Of course, you can place a Loudbox Performer on a table or adapt it to mount on a speaker stand and that would give you some of the SoloAmp's versatility.

Something to note on the specifications of the Fishman Loudbox 100, Fishman Loudbox Performer versus the Fishman SoloAmp is that Fishman publishes the Loudbox 100's and Performer's frequency-response specifications but they don't do it, ala Bose, for their SoloAmp. Although the SoloAmp and Bose speakers sound good, I'm quite sure that Bose's tone is achieved through internal-circuitboard equalization that helps it achieve a "fullness" of tone through eq-boosting of the bass frequencies at the expense of using some of the power amp's wattage to achieve this. My old Bose Panaray 802 speakers utilized a Bose external eq to boost both bass and treble frequencies to achieve a fullness of tone. I'm thinking that a Fishman SoloAmp may do something similar to Bose's eq-manipulation to achieve a decent tone out of a small enclosure? I'd sure like to hear anyone's feedback on my thoughts.

Regards,

SpruceTop