My favourite new power amp! Seymour Duncan Power Stage 170

yek said:
It’s up against stiff competition. Because I brought the Power Station to rehearsal today, and that is THE best-sounding power amp solution, IMO. Addictive. You haven’t felt the power of the Axe-Fx until you play it with the Power Station and a Cab.
But the resonance adjustments it requires in the Amp block limit its use, sadly.
Click to expand...

What kind of resonance adjustments do you have to make because of the PowerStation vs. other power amps?
 
The Axe-Fx and AX8 use virtual resonance settings. The user can improve these but have to this manually.

This changes when using tube-based amplification, because the tube circuitry takes over and manages the critical interaction between amp and speaker. In these cases it’s best to neutralize Low and High Resonance (Speaker page of Amp block), to prevent unnecessary boosting of certain low and high frequencies. This also prevents undesirable feedback.

Even though the PS is a “neutral” power amp, this is still the best thing to do. Last night I compared the sound and feel of the PS with and without neutralizing Low and High Resonance. The sound was much more balanced and controlled with L/H Resonance neutralized. Other parts of the power amp modeling can stay in effect.

Alas, changing Low and High Resonance has an impact on the direct feed too, so it won’t work for FOH. And setting up dual amp blocks for this purpose is just too much effort.
 
yek said:
The Axe-Fx and AX8 use virtual resonance settings. The user can improve these but have to this manually.

This changes when using tube-based amplification, because the tube circuitry takes over and manages the critical interaction between amp and speaker. In these cases it’s best to neutralize Low and High Resonance (Speaker page of Amp block), to prevent unnecessary boosting of certain low and high frequencies. This also prevents undesirable feedback.

Even though the PS is a “neutral” power amp, this is still the best thing to do. Last night I compared the sound and feel of the PS with and without neutralizing Low and High Resonance. The sound was much more balanced and controlled with L/H Resonance neutralized. Other parts of the power amp modeling can stay in effect.

Alas, changing Low and High Resonance has an impact on the direct feed too, so it won’t work for FOH. And setting up dual amp blocks for this purpose is just too much effort.
Click to expand...

Huh... So you don't "neutralize" the resonance with other solid state power amps, but you find that you do have to with the PS? Am I reading you right?
 
yeky83 said:
Huh... So you don't "neutralize" the resonance with other solid state power amps, but you find that you do have to with the PS? Am I reading you right?
Click to expand...
Right. A tube amp's output is affected at different frequencies by the speaker's impedance, which can be radically different at different frequencies. That's what Fractal's power-amp modeling simulates. But solid-state power amps are mostly unaffected by speaker impedance.
 
With the PS (tube-based) it's best to neutralize them.
With solid-state amps (Matrix etc.) it's the other way around: non-neutral Low and High Resonance settings are required for best results.
 
Rex said:
Right. A tube amp's output is affected at different frequencies by the speaker's impedance, which can be radically different at different frequencies. That's what Fractal's power-amp modeling simulates. But solid-state power amps are mostly unaffected by speaker impedance.
Click to expand...

yek said:
With the PS (tube-based) it's best to neutralize them.
With solid-state amps (Matrix etc.) it's the other way around: non-neutral Low and High Resonance settings are required for best results.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh oops. I mixed up the Power Station and Power Stage in my mind. Both PS, so :p I thought you were saying that somehow SD PS was tube based, was getting real confused haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: yek
yeky83 said:
Ohhhh oops. I mixed up the Power Station and Power Stage in my mind. Both PS, so :p I thought you were saying that somehow SD PS was tube based, was getting real confused haha
Click to expand...
Oh, no! You made a mistake. You must give us each a dollar. :)
 
PowerStage 170 has arrived.

First impressions:
  • Dark grey color is nice.
  • No quick start manual, which is weird.
  • Quiet fan, much more quiet than my Matrix.
  • Very compact. No problem throwing this in a gig bag.
  • Tone controls have a large range. At noon they seem pretty flat, but no specifications to refer to (and no manual).
First hands-on experiences are that the sound is comparable to that of a Matrix GT1000FX, with the PowerStage being a little more transparent overall, and less congested in the low mids. Which are good things. Esp. those low mids have always bothered me.

Preliminary conclusion is also that the PowerStage is no match for the Fryette Power Station II, as I expected. The Power Station is really transparant and natural.

I've only been able to compare them at fairly low volume levels at this moment. I'm taking the three power amps to a gig tomorrow, and hope to have some time available to testing them at gig levels.
 
yek said:
PowerStage 170 has arrived.

First impressions:
  • Dark grey color is nice.
  • No quick start manual, which is weird.
  • Quiet fan, much more quiet than my Matrix.
  • Very compact. No problem throwing this in a gig bag.
  • Tone controls have a large range. At noon they seem pretty flat, but no measurements to refer to (and no manual).
First hands-on experiences are that the sound is comparable to that of a Matrix GT1000FX, with the PowerStage being a little more transparent overall, and less congested in the low mids. Which are good things. Esp. those low mids have always bothered me.

Preliminary conclusion is also that the PowerStage is no match for the Fryette Power Station II, as I expected. The Power Station is really transparant and natural.

I've only been able to compare them at fairly low volume levels at this moment. I'm taking the three power amps to a gig tomorrow, and hope to have some time available to testing them at gig levels.
Click to expand...

Awesome. I have to say you'll be the first person I've ever heard of testing 3 different power amps for guitar use at a gig! Love it. It's really too bad you couldn't set up a switching system to do that, but unless you are set with that sounds like a quick manual process between sets at least. I'm lucky that I get to play full volume at home daily , but I'm unlucky in that my current longlasting band never rehearses. 99% of the time now we learn tunes and show up and play. I don't like that but becomes a reality in certain situations. Oh well good luck with the Powerstage testing and sounds to me like it's got a tough task ahead

Eric
 
  • Like
Reactions: yek
I was told that there's time nor room tomorrow for experimenting. So, being impatient as I am, I took my gear to a nearby studio and have been playing till my ears bled for the past 90 minutes, alternating between the 3 power amps.

Conclusion: confirmation that I do prefer the PowerStage over the Matrix GT1000FX. For the reasons stated above: transparency, less congested/saturated lows and low mids. It was quite clear to me really. The Matrix sounded more boxy in comparison. Also, the PowerStage seems less sensitive, doesn't require finding a "sweet spot".

Bear in mind that I've been using the Matrix for many years now, with great satisfaction. So zooming in on differences is nitpicking to some extent, and the differences may not be enough justification to swap gear.

The PowerStage has plenty of output level, more than I'd ever need, and is super handy to transport.

It's going to take the place of the Matrix (yeah, one less rack unit). Time will tell if it's as durable as the Matrix has proven to be.

Side-note: I do think that Matrix has missed the boat here by discontinuing their GM50 module and not providing something that fits on a pedalboard or another kind of standalone box. It may not be too late yet though.

P.S. I bought the PowerStage before writing this. No ties, no endorsements etc.
 
Last edited:
yek said:
I was told that there's time nor room tomorrow for experimenting. So, being impatient as I am, I took my gear to a nearby studio and have been playing till my ears bled for the past 90 minutes, alternating between the 3 power amps.

Conclusion: confirmation that I do prefer the PowerStage over the Matrix GT1000FX. For the reasons stated above: transparency, less congested/saturated lows and low mids. It was quite clear to me really. The Matrix sounded more boxy in comparison. Also, the PowerStage seems less sensitive, doesn't require finding "sweet spot".

Bear in mind that I've been using the Matrix for many years now, with great satisfaction. So zooming in on the differences is nitpicking to some extent, and the differences may not be enough justification to swap gear.

The PowerStage has plenty of output level, more than I'd ever need, and is super handy to transport.

It's going to take the place of the Matrix (yeah, one less rack unit). Time will tell if it's as durable as the Matrix has proven to be.

Side-note: I do think that Matrix has missed the boat here by discontinuing their GM50 module and not providing something that fits on a pedalboard or another kind of standalone box. It may not be too late yet though.

P.S. I bought the PowerStage before writing this. No ties, no endorsements etc.
Click to expand...

thanks for taking the time to compare and review them. This is pretty much in-line with a couple other reviews I've read from other Matrix users. It sounds like Seymour Duncan really hit it out the park with this one. I was curious about it for a while, but I ended up with a Fryette 2/50/2 and I'm very happy with its response over the cheap PA poweramp I was using before. Though every once in a while I wonder how it compares to a more high-end option like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom