SoloAmp/BagAmp comparison

[aboutjack]

Originally Posted by eatswodo

Now that's funny.

Yeah, it is funny, as the core technologies that make the BagAmp function are proprietary with patent applications being hustled through the USPTO. So, an effort at a small vertical line array may pop out of one of these low buck equipment mills, but it'll face the same engineering hurdles that make using traditional components and methods problematic that all the rest of us have faced.

Basically, it ain't easy getting accurate sound out of teensie weenie little vertical sticks.

[aboutjack]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

Just a new avenue for thought and please take it with a grain of salt as I submit it with good intentions

The entire thread is a discussion that seems to want to lead to a conclusion that making the right "purchase" choice is the definitive road to a great sounding acoustic guitar amp/PA. As if by making the right choice based on specs and speculation great tone "will be had". There simply is NO plug and play miracle. It's never happened and it never will. An unbelievable guitarist with great ears and patience is gonna make his/her BagAmp, SoloAmp, Bose, QSC or Pignose sound vastly better than a struggling weekend warrior with his/her BagAmp, SoloAmp, Bose, QSC or Pignose.
My 2 cents and YMMV

Thanks for a truly insightful post. This very reality is why I focused 99% of my effort with developing the BagAmp into delivering basic, accurate sound reproduction at the lowest possible price and system weight/size. My idea was that if I delivered the most accurate core sound quality per size/weight/price available into the market, players would make whatever personal accommodations might be needed to fit the product into their own performance lifestyle, using outboard gear, as they saw fit.

My experience is that all-in-one, do-everything doodads rarely actually do much of anything at best-in-class levels. The realities of costs cannot be avoided with any of these products, meaning the more you spend on some product details the less you can spend on others to hold a target price. In my case, I knowingly didn't spend beans on "features," only tacking on a basic reverb and EQ because somebody somewhere might need to just jack straight into the thing and would need some basic effects. All the money went into the enclosure and drivers and amplification stages... all aimed at delivering what we hoped would be acknowledged as a surprisingly accurate sound reproduction system in an impossibly small and lightweight form factor.

At a couple of points in the process I considered leaving off reverb and EQ completely, but was influenced by other stakeholders in the project and relented to include what's now there.

With BagAmp v2.0 I just might do that very thing and eliminate the reverb and EQ completely.

We'll see.

[geokie8]

Originally Posted by aboutjack

At a couple of points in the process I considered leaving off reverb and EQ completely, but was influenced by other stakeholders in the project and relented to include what's now there.

Well, Jack, you posted so you're fair game.

I'm actually one who will use my own outboard equipment, so I appreciate the lower price. Still, once you decided to include the 'verb & EQ, couldn't they have been more "usable" without raising the per unit price by much? It's hard for me to understand the same complaints from so many users when multiple manufacturers can add multiple choices of (usable) reverb and multiple channels of (usable) EQ on their low-cost mixers for $100.

Inquiring minds want to know.

geokie8

[BuleriaChk]

Uh, actually it was the bass slider all the way up on my CTP-2 preamp.



(sign on wall at Livermore - do not gaze into laser beam with remaining eye.....)

Duh!

(Needless to say, sounds great again.....)

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk

Excellent points. I took my SoloAmp out for the third time last night. The first two nights (in the same venue, same room, etc.) were fantastic - my guitar sounded just the way I wanted it, with no tweaking whatsoever....

Last night, for some reason, my guitar sounded bassy - and I spent all evening trying to solve it without introducing harshness, really fighting the guitar.

I have no idea what contributed to the difference, and am sure it can be solved, but I do think that as the technology gets better, it becomes much more a decision between features rather than basic sound..

Someone once said that it is impossible to buy a (bad) new motorcycle these days; they have all been over-engineered to the impossible (well, ok, maybe the Buell, but even that has gotten better....:-) Of course, in the motorcycle case, user error is much more critical.......

[BoB/335]

Originally Posted by aboutjack

Thanks for a truly insightful post. This very reality is why I focused 99% of my effort with developing the BagAmp into delivering basic, accurate sound reproduction at the lowest possible price and system weight/size. My idea was that if I delivered the most accurate core sound quality per size/weight/price available into the market, players would make whatever personal accommodations might be needed to fit the product into their own performance lifestyle, using outboard gear, as they saw fit.

My experience is that all-in-one, do-everything doodads rarely actually do much of anything at best-in-class levels. The realities of costs cannot be avoided with any of these products, meaning the more you spend on some product details the less you can spend on others to hold a target price. In my case, I knowingly didn't spend beans on "features," only tacking on a basic reverb and EQ because somebody somewhere might need to just jack straight into the thing and would need some basic effects. All the money went into the enclosure and drivers and amplification stages... all aimed at delivering what we hoped would be acknowledged as a surprisingly accurate sound reproduction system in an impossibly small and lightweight form factor.

At a couple of points in the process I considered leaving off reverb and EQ completely, but was influenced by other stakeholders in the project and relented to include what's now there.

With BagAmp v2.0 I just might do that very thing and eliminate the reverb and EQ completely.

We'll see.

Hey Jack! Good to see you back!!!

I would like to know how and why you came up with the type of "reverb" that you ended up with. I have still not heard the BA yet and hope to in the very near future but it seems everyone has the same comments about the reverb. If you decided to include reverb, why wasn't it a more common type?

[BuleriaChk]

IMO,

If that is the case (especially if the preamps are excellent), then I would like such an amp to include a send/return and/or an auxiliary input....

Originally Posted by aboutjack

Thanks for a truly insightful post. This very reality is why I focused 99% of my effort with developing the BagAmp into delivering basic, accurate sound reproduction at the lowest possible price and system weight/size. My idea was that if I delivered the most accurate core sound quality per size/weight/price available into the market, players would make whatever personal accommodations might be needed to fit the product into their own performance lifestyle, using outboard gear, as they saw fit.

[aboutjack]

Originally Posted by geokie8

Well, Jack, you posted so you're fair game.

I'm actually one who will use my own outboard equipment, so I appreciate the lower price. Still, once you decided to include the 'verb & EQ, couldn't they have been more "usable" without raising the per unit price by much? It's hard for me to understand the same complaints from so many users when multiple manufacturers can add multiple choices of (usable) reverb and multiple channels of (usable) EQ on their low-cost mixers for $100.

Inquiring minds want to know.

geokie8

I've avoided the reverb issue until now, but have been drawn in and will make a one-time statement.

We use the same reverb chip used in the higher end Fender Passport models and several other extremely reputable, name-brand PA sets. It is a single 'voice' analog effect that, again, has many years of use and many tens of thousands of products in the field. Since the BagAmp is a general puspose PA, not a single purpose acoustic guitar amplifier, we chose a PA/vocal reverb effect, under the presumption that professional guitar players would not likely be pleased by any single voice effect we might implement, and would rather to use their personally configured outboard effects device for this purpose. Vocalists, on the other hand, rarely use an outboard effects device, and typically rely on the built-in reverb in a PA set. So, again, we implemented a vocal reverb.

Quite truthfully, in all of the prerelease usage by a quite large and diverse range of professional musicians here in Nashville, there were no complaints from singers about the reverb.

We are not ignoring the slice of early BagAmp users who are guitarists-only, and who are apparently not pleased by the reverb. We are evaluating several alternate approaches for future product iterations. But, our core priority for the built-in reverb for it to be a great general purpose vocal reverb stands. And, changes we make must hold to that value, first.

Again, despite creating heavy discussion in the online acoustic guitar community, the BagAmp and its sibling products comprise a modern, lightweight portable PA system, one that is scalable and modular across an extremely wide range of specific usages. But, mostly the system is intended -- and was engineered -- to be a great vocal PA, with the built-in reverb and EQ functions specifically tailored for vocals. That's why we adopted the most widely used vocal reverb chip in the industry; because it has such widespread acceptance... with singers.

[BuleriaChk]

Interesting. As a (nylon string Flamenco guitarist) I did audition (and rejected) the Passport models, and the underwhelming reverb was one of the main reasons (In spite of the fact that I really liked the form factor)

I wonder if the Boss ME-50 used the same chip (I thought it had a crappy reverb as well, not up to their usual standards - the GT-10 is extraordinary in every way....)

Originally Posted by aboutjack

We use the same reverb chip used in the higher end Fender Passport models and several other extremely reputable, name-brand PA sets.

[geokie8]

Originally Posted by aboutjack

I've avoided the reverb issue until now, but have been drawn in and will make a one-time statement.

We really do appreciate the feedback. It helps a lot to hear things explained from the manufacturer's perspective, a luxury we experience with very few of the products we actually use.

Now about that EQ . . . .

geokie8

[BoB/335]

Originally Posted by aboutjack

I've avoided the reverb issue until now, but have been drawn in and will make a one-time statement.

We use the same reverb chip used in the higher end Fender Passport models and several other extremely reputable, name-brand PA sets. It is a single 'voice' analog effect that, again, has many years of use and many tens of thousands of products in the field. Since the BagAmp is a general puspose PA, not a single purpose acoustic guitar amplifier, we chose a PA/vocal reverb effect, under the presumption that professional guitar players would not likely be pleased by any single voice effect we might implement, and would rather to use their personally configured outboard effects device for this purpose. Vocalists, on the other hand, rarely use an outboard effects device, and typically rely on the built-in reverb in a PA set. So, again, we implemented a vocal reverb.

Quite truthfully, in all of the prerelease usage by a quite large and diverse range of professional musicians here in Nashville, there were no complaints from singers about the reverb.

We are not ignoring the slice of early BagAmp users who are guitarists-only, and who are apparently not pleased by the reverb. We are evaluating several alternate approaches for future product iterations. But, our core priority for the built-in reverb for it to be a great general purpose vocal reverb stands. And, changes we make must hold to that value, first.

Again, despite creating heavy discussion in the online acoustic guitar community, the BagAmp and its sibling products comprise a modern, lightweight portable PA system, one that is scalable and modular across an extremely wide range of specific usages. But, mostly the system is intended -- and was engineered -- to be a great vocal PA, with the built-in reverb and EQ functions specifically tailored for vocals. That's why we adopted the most widely used vocal reverb chip in the industry; because it has such widespread acceptance... with singers.

That explanation makes sense! I'm suprised we haven't hard that earlier as this topic has been harshed over by the community here for the few months I've been here.

[BuleriaChk]

It means that the comparison between the SoloAmp and the BagAmp will be apples and oranges, since the SA was designed specifically with the acoustic guitarist in mind (and has the appropriate included features).

Performers emphasizing vocals will probably gravitate to the BagAmp, especially if guitar work is secondary. I think Jack's post clarifies a lot in this thread on this forum and should be appreciated here; I don't know if that distinction is made in the marketing and advertising (and I think it probably should, to save everyone a lot of time and effort in making an initial decision).....

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by aboutjack

At a couple of points in the process I considered leaving off reverb and EQ completely, but was influenced by other stakeholders in the project and relented to include what's now there.

With BagAmp v2.0 I just might do that very thing and eliminate the reverb and EQ completely.

We'll see.

Hi Jack,

That's good news and I hope it happens!

Regards,

SpruceTop

[SpruceTop]

Hi AboutJack,

Jack, are you or BagAmp now an AGF sponsor? This is good news as now you can offer your thoughts and perspectives on BagAmp and sound reinforcement. Will we see any link in the AGF header area? Thanks!

Regards,

SpruceTop

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk

It means that the comparison between the SoloAmp and the BagAmp will be apples and oranges, since the SA was designed specifically with the acoustic guitarist in mind (and has the appropriate included features).

Performers emphasizing vocals will probably gravitate to the BagAmp, especially if guitar work is secondary. I think Jack's post clarifies a lot in this thread on this forum and should be appreciated here; I don't know if that distinction is made in the marketing and advertising (and I think it probably should, to save everyone a lot of time and effort in making an initial decision).....

I believe that these are incorrect assumptions. It is appropriate to compare these products directly, IMO.

What I gathered from Jack's post is that the effects/reverb were chosen for vocals/singing, not that the BagAmp itself was designed around singers:

Jack wrote:
"...we chose a PA/vocal reverb effect, under the presumption that professional guitar players would not likely be pleased by any single voice effect we might implement, and would rather to use their personally configured outboard effects device for this purpose. Vocalists, on the other hand, rarely use an outboard effects device, and typically rely on the built-in reverb in a PA set. So, again, we implemented a vocal reverb."


From my hands-on experiences with the BagAmp and the SoloAmp, I would say that Jack hit the nail on the head...that is, many of us guitar-dweebs prefer our own effects and/or front-end gear. Any attempt to give more features to try to please a wider audience means greater user-costs spent on features that still might not be useful for folks with their own front-end gear.

One of the interesting things (IMO) that has not been discussed much is that with optimal use/placement, the performer is never within arm's reach of the amp, be it Bose, BagAmp, or SoloAmp. This then requires some kind of pedal or front-end gear for even the simplest thing, such as muting to tune, not to mention changing EQ settings, changing effects, plugging in different instruments with different setting, etc.. This kind of requirement (for me) means that whatever amp/PA I am plugging into, I need my front-end gear. The more features packed into the amp itself, 5-8 feet away from where I am sitting/playing, the more money is being spent on features that I *can't* easily use...or will never use!

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

I believe that these are incorrect assumptions. It is appropriate to compare these products directly, IMO.

What I gathered from Jack's post is that the effects/reverb were chosen for vocals/singing, not that the BagAmp itself was designed around singers:

I assumed the same things too from Jack's post.

One of the interesting things (IMO) that has not been discussed much is that with optimal use/placement, the performer is never within arm's reach of the amp, be it Bose, BagAmp, or SoloAmp. This then requires some kind of pedal or front-end gear for even the simplest thing, such as muting to tune, not to mention changing EQ settings, changing effects, plugging in different instruments with different setting, etc.. This kind of requirement (for me) means that whatever amp/PA I am plugging into, I need my front-end gear. The more features packed into the amp itself, 5-8 feet away from where I am sitting/playing, the more money is being spent on features that I *can't* easily use...or will never use!

Good Point!

Regards,

SpruceTop