The Marshall Class 5 is a Class A amp.
 
It's a very nice factory amp.
 
Find a nice speaker for it and you can experience nirvana*. (*the state of being, not the popular band)
 
 
best regards,
mike

Yeah it would definitely sound better with some greenbacks in a 412 cab.

Rain
Funny how one thing leads to another based on your state of mind.
 
After following Ol Pal's link, in spite of me being a Marshall guy, I ended up checking out Orange stuff - and here's one that's got me interested.

Hi Rain,
 There's a really good chance that a Marshall guy would very much enjoy a Orange Tiny Terror.
 
 It's slightly modified clone of a Marshall 1974 (a.k.a. Marshall 18watt)
 
http://www.prowessamplifiers.com/schematics/images/tiny_terror.pdf
 
http://mhuss.com/18watt/schematics/18wattLite2b.gif
 
I think it's fantastic that so many companies have started making versions of the best amp designs that people came up with over the years.
 
There's a lot of fun to be had!
 
best regards,
mike

yorolpal
Just stumbled on this one.  Try just listening without watching and see if you can tell what's playing when.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwqYAOVQeZE
 
Wish my Amplitube 3 was this good.  Dern.

Perfect example that when listening one has to be told to know what equipment is being used. Technology has without doubt reached a level
for users to have more than one way to achieve desired results.
I believe that ability has happened with software as well as hardware.
 
Having fun while getting the desired results can be done in many ways now. It's fantastic that so many limitations in performing and recording
have been eliminated. 
The selection of amps and/or software is amazing and at price points that most anybody can find something that will fit their needs. It's great fun
searching for it too.
 
For years I've been attracted to "novelty" amps. "Micro" and "mini" are crazy fun to me.
It's not all about recording or searching for a sound all of the time. It's about playing and enjoying the moment...the trip- knowing that it can
be had in many ways and feeding off the sounds created by "accident" or design or playing through some "crazy fun" equipment .
I can remember when we didn't have that many choices and it wasn't hard not to be able to enjoy the trip because the cost
just put it out of reach.
 
I think it's great that a little low wattage amp or a piece of software can not only be used to record great music but also give a person endless hours
of having a blast making music or noise. :)
 

I thought it was a perfect example of a preamp's square wave being reproduced by a class AB power amp. IMHO, There wasn't much unique or inspiring going on with that tone. It seems well suited for an interior decoration mixing mentality; "The couch goes over there".
 
I know the idea is that things are getting better every day, but I'd sure like to see a comparison that puts the technology to a more difficult to mimic test.
 
Something like Jimi playing the star spangled banner with a Plexi... live playing... no reamping. 
 
Or maybe Mr. Gibbons torturing one of his 1958 Champs... live playing... no reamping.
 
These are two examples where the reactivity of impedance bridges in the signal chain provide a sense of feedback to the players that seems to inspire them to play with the amp and not just through it.
 
These opinions don't need to be qualified by my reputation as a mediocre player ... I can come up with this stuff simply by being an enthusiastic listener. :-)
 
 
all the best,
mike
 
 
 
 edit spelling 

Rain
Mic'd a cab. For the first time in almost 15 years.
 
My first impression?
 
:) :) :)
 
A lot funnier and intuitive to move a mic around than to browse through impulses or to move virtual mics onscreen w/ a mouse.
 
 

Isn't it great to have fun and not be derailed by all the other means. To enjoy it for what it is and what you can have fun doing with it. To have a choice for that time in space.
It has happened with every piece of equipment I've owned at one time or another. Sometimes you feel like a nut....glad I don't have to know about all the BS to enjoy using stuff.
 
To me the worst thing would be for me to miss out on having fun with virtual mics and such because I was limited to what I could have fun with.
To imagine that I couldn't have fun turning knobs and blasting sound out of an amp because nothing came close to dialing in virtual amps/mics....either view is just beyond my reasoning of enjoying  my creative time with sound.
 
There are amps that I don't care for. For whatever reasons they just didn't turn me on when I turned them on. Same problem with software...sometimes it just doesn't do it for me and really don't care why...I just move on and enjoy it when a tool fits and gives me a great feeling to making sounds.
 
 

Is Bapu's bass amp a class A/M?

 I also hope I didn't sidetrack the thread. I guess I diverged into why I don't usually do what you did Rain but I'm sure glad that you enjoyed doing what you did. Lots of amps are still selling so the market for amps is solid. Lots of folks like em' and will continue to like em'.
 
 Not being particularly nostalgic  I wandered over into sim/POD  territory and haven't really left for often or for long. I think the idea that amps always will be and always have been the best or most fun way to do something might be an idea held by many but I think the perception is subjective depending on the individual. There really is no right or wrong in this regard. More power to you if you are having fun doing that. FWIW I can play my POD with my computer turned off :)
 
 From a recording perspective I think a person would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two as in the example of the Kemper. I would go even further and say that there is only a 50/50 chance for anyone to guess it correctly. The main strength of the Kemper is its Chameleon way of mimicking any amp/cab to perfection.IMO there is similar quality in  some other less expensive units but you are left with a given set of adjustment parameters and they have to be set right, and you are playing their rendition of an amp and not one you captured yourself. If you like what it sounds and plays like then no need to go further.
 
 Ol Pal....I thought Bapu had all the best toys. That there Kemper is nice, really nice. The only thing I don't like about it is the name. We have cool pedals with names like Big Muff and Big Pickle  and amps called Orange, Hughes Kefner and Marshall. Kemper sounds almost too no nonsense to market. I need a name with balls like the Kemper Attitude V or the Kemper Vader 6...ok if I had the dough I would still buy it;)
 
 
 
 
 
 

Welp...I guess ol Cristoph Kemper was just too proud a papa to name his baby anything other than Jr;-)
 

 
Here's the paper presented at the AES 106th Convention, 1999, in Munich Germany:
 
http://www.sintefex.com/docs/appnotes/dynaconv.PDF
 
It describes a method of dynamic convolution and it proposes a way to implement it.
 
As a rough guide they propose that you can use 128 IRs to simulate an audio device's response.
 
If you want to simulate the device with some of the knobs on the device turned to different places than the you'll want another 128 IRs for that too.
 
In other words, if you like the sound of your amp and you "model" it and then you twist the bass knob a bit and think "oh, I like that too" you are supposed to model it again... cause the first collection of IRs only mimic the way the amp works with the previous settings. You can just turn up the bass elsewhere... but it is not the same.
 
Yes. The implementation of this technology will get better and better.
 
Folks that are in to it will probably be buying a new rig every 2 years for the next decade or more.
 
Other folks will be able to buy yesterday's news, used or on closeout, for a fraction of what the early adopters pay for it.
 
The smart guys at Sintefex may have overestimated what it takes to reproduce some aural experiences, but they are probably not too far off the mark for the more challenging comparisons.
 
In fact they quickly discovered that the dynamic range of an throughput signal defines the number of IRs that are needed to convince people that the effect is working.
 
In other words, if you are playing a squashed, compressed, noisy signal then you can throw out most of the 128 IRs and just use the ones that cover the limited dynamic range that you hope to reproduce.
 
That's why guys can listen to some kind of *tones* and feel like they are listening to the real thing and probably why the countless demonstrations of this technology never seem to attempt to present all those other kinds of tones.
 
 
The paper was written when the CPU requirements for real time processing was beyond the budget of small businesses. Real time dynamic convolution has only been implemented in the music industry for the past 5 years or so, and I imagine there's few more years before it becomes full featured.
 
You can bet that the *native* software developers are chomping at the bit to use more and more IRs in their existing dynamic convolution processes. So if you like the idea... you're going to like what is coming.
 
Maybe enough people will like it that I'll be able to buy a used Trainwreck real cheap some day. :-)
 
best regards,
mike
 
 
edit spelling