Matrix GT1000 vs. Valve amp Peavey 50 50 classic

[clarky]

Last time I looked and listened the Gt800 and Gt1000 were different poweramps.....

if I recall correctly, the GT800 does not have that 'feel' thing that the GT1000, GT1500 and GT1600 have
so in that sense, it's more like a regular SS poweramp with the exception of being so lightweight and only 1U

so comparing the GT800 and GT1000 is not quite apples with apples
but comparing the GT1000 with the GT1600 is

 

[Raf_666]

I don't believe that all these matrix amps are that much different from each other besides eq things , I'd bet the guts look pretty much the same ... But acting more like tubes , dunno all clever marketing with lots of support from mostly the same ppl on the forums. Anyway not bashing anyone or anything and as I said before for Metal it lacks something that I didn't realize missing in the first place ... Problably for clean stuff and crunchy pling plong there's no difference at all ... SO all I was saying rehearsing and gigging on high volume levels made me sell the matrix while direct comparing to the mesa , back and forth ... really hard to discribe

All happy with whatever gear they use , great for them which brand or whatever ... at that time the matrix lacked , the boogie kicked .ss

Raf

 

[paulmapp8306]

Having had both - the 1000 is different to the 800. Its more open sounding (not just an EQ thing) and a little more responsive. Its not a world away though.

I too have compared the GT to a couple of tube power amps - and they did add some extra life its true. I also compared it to a valve power section of a regular head - that also added life but a lot of EQ colouration as well. As Ive said before though - the "light bulb" moment for me was when I then compared a real amp to the AFX with the various power options - the AFX/Matrix was closest. While the options utilizing valve power section sounded more alive, and indeed better - they were further away from the real amp, so in that sense less accurate.

Ultimately - you choose a solution that works for you, based on your own priorities - be that authenticity, life, feel, weight, size, power, volume etc etc etc - then you rock out

Id also add - after recently going to two big concerts involving acts that have been around the block for 30+ years. The FOH sound was so indistinct, you couldn't tell if it was produced by a £3+ amp rig with £3k+ boutique pedals, an AFX/SS power amp, or indeed a broken SS transistor radio with a 1.5" driver. Really - what goes out front bears no resemblance to what you hear on stage however you do things (even FRFR and direct - it SOOOOO depends on the environment as well), so when getting "choosy" over relatively small differences in sound/feel/EQ etc, it is really only to pamper our own inner sense of "great".

 

[Raf_666]

Having had both - the 1000 is different to the 800. Its more open sounding (not just an EQ thing) and a little more responsive. Its not a world away though.

I too have compared the GT to a couple of tube power amps - and they did add some extra life its true. I also compared it to a valve power section of a regular head - that also added life but a lot of EQ colouration as well. As Ive said before though - the "light bulb" moment for me was when I then compared a real amp to the AFX with the various power options - the AFX/Matrix was closest. While the options utilizing valve power section sounded more alive, and indeed better - they were further away from the real amp, so in that sense less accurate.

Ultimately - you choose a solution that works for you, based on your own priorities - be that authenticity, life, feel, weight, size, power, volume etc etc etc - then you rock out

Id also add - after recently going to two big concerts involving acts that have been around the block for 30+ years. The FOH sound was so indistinct, you couldn't tell if it was produced by a £3+ amp rig with £3k+ boutique pedals, an AFX/SS power amp, or indeed a broken SS transistor radio with a 1.5" driver. Really - what goes out front bears no resemblance to what you hear on stage however you do things (even FRFR and direct - it SOOOOO depends on the environment as well), so when getting "choosy" over relatively small differences in sound/feel/EQ etc, it is really only to pamper our own inner sense of "great".

On real big stages with decent PA's , no one can tell the difference , the mic'ed cab even in front of tube amp & cab looses that feel by beeing amplified by SS poweramps too ...

So if i'd only play under these circumstances i'd be happy too ;-) , although in those case I also prefer mic'ed cabs so I don't need to rely on monitoring ...

Rock'on guys \m/

R

 

[Thomas-Hawk]

if I recall correctly, the GT800 does not have that 'feel' thing that the GT1000, GT1500 and GT1600 have
so in that sense, it's more like a regular SS poweramp with the exception of being so lightweight and only 1U

so comparing the GT800 and GT1000 is not quite apples with apples
but comparing the GT1000 with the GT1600 is

Really? I thought the 800 had the "feel" thing in it too? It was the first offering from Matrix to have that "feel" thing, or it would just have been an amp like their XT line. Matt, can you chime in here on this? I know the 1000 sounds a bit different from the 800 (as seen on Pete Thorn's demo video), but I thought they both had that "feel" thing going on.

 

[clarky]

my understanding was that the GT1000 was where the feel thing was introduced [by slowing the amp down]..

of course.. I could be completely mistaken...

Matt will know for sure..

that said, even if the GT800 don't have the feel thing, it's still different to the XT because it's geared towards guitar and guitar cabs rather than being a PA amp..

 

[paulmapp8306]

The 800 also had the feel thing, which is what made the GT800 different from the XT800 PA amp. Basically the GT800 was a tuned version of the XT800 - slowing the response down, changing the input sensitivity, adding different inputs/outputs and (I believe) a couple of component value changes at the input stage. The GT1000 took the 800, and reworked the board itself allowing the feel thing to be enhanced further (something that couldnt be done with the original XT layout any better than the GT800 already had).

 

[kim lewis]

slowing the response down, changing the input sensitivity, adding different inputs/outputs and (I believe) a couple of component value changes at the input stage. The GT1000 took the 800, and reworked the board itself allowing the feel thing to be enhanced further

Respectfully, I'm trying to understand your point exactly. Are you saying you "know" the amp was "slowed down" purposefully by inducing slew limited distortion with different components or are you saying the digital power supply conversion rate was slowed down, which may or may not have any affect on audio quality? In addition, "reworking the board" may or may not change the "feel". And what does "feel' mean anyway? How do you "know" this stuff? Or are you speculating with opinion?

 

[paulmapp8306]

I was involved in the development. I was the second person to get an original XT800, a couple of weeks after a now disgraced/banned forumite. I am an electronics engineer by trade and had several discussions with the designer when comparing the XT800 to my VHT 2:50:2, in regards how it sounded and responded. We talked about ways of replicating some of that (such as slowing the response down, and changing input component values) - along with features guitarists would like to see - such as matching the input sensitivity with other guitar related products and changing the in/out connectors.

I got the prototype of the GT800 to test and gave further feedback. While the GT800 was much better than the XT, and probably the best affordable SS solution available at the time (affordable being relative - other amps that were nearly as good were 3 times the price, from the likes of Haffler and Bryston) It became apparent there were some things that couldnt be done with the existing board layout to Matrix's satisfaction. This led to the development of the Gt1000 along with input from other players and amp builders in the industry (including I believe Friedman).

It is what it is. There is - of course - some marketing hype as most players dont understand the electronics that goes into tuning an amp. Its not really meant to "con" people but to describe in words they understand what the effect is. The upshot is Matrix have a range of amps that are linear in frequency response - as the original XT was - but with altered input design, components and values to more mimic the effects of using a tube amplification method. Its not perfect - but its very good, and does not induce the colouration that valves do (normally by design - which is why a Marshall sounds like a Marshal and a Mesa like a Mesa - where as a VHT is fairly neutral). If you want a particular flavour of sound - say Mesa and Mesa only, a Mesa Power amp will give you that better than any other amp. If however you want a range of amp types from your AFX - then a SS Power amp gives the neutrality you need to be more authentic for ALL models. The Matrix amps add in a little give/sponginess/high order harmonics than normal SS amps engineer out on purpose (as there not wanted for full spectrum music and engineered out).

Believe it or not - thats pretty much the story. I made the tweekistry video hosted on matrix's site - and wrote the first reviews as a guitarist first and foremost. They are well made, well designed amps - designed for a specific purpose. They use top quality components and a very neat layout (take one apart to confirm this if you must), they are extremely light and small. They are "probably" the premier SS Power amp for use with a modeller - BUT they are not for everyone, and everyone will have their own opinion. Try as many options as you can, and choose the best fit for you which - as everyone here and Matrix themselves will say - is the only way to be sure.


I will add - the GT range were designed when the AFX Ultra was the gold standard - and many thought there was still something missing. At that point many of us - me included - used valve power amps to get this something into the equation. As the AFX2 came along - and has developed, more of this "missing" something has been put in place by cliff. It is almost certain that the "need" for valve power amps, or even "tunes SS amps" to match the AFX2 are less necessary than they once were, as the nuances of real amps are further refined by Cliff. I havent tried another solution for over 18 months now - and dont feel the need to. The size, weight and quality of the Matrix means I dont want to. I appreciate that people looking for a solution now, may have more valid options that 18 months ago BECAUSE of the advancement of modelling in the AFX2 in the 3.5 years aor so since I first tried the Matrix XT800, but the Matrix amps remain a top notch solution - and are used by many other people than just modeller users. They are replacing old HH amps in Wet/Dry /Wet set-ups by renowned artists, they are being used to power lesser modellers - they are being used with traditional valve pres like the Bognor fish in place of valve power amps with great success. They are even being used by the odd couple to power a pedal board - where the drive is coming from traditional analogue distortion stomps. They are very versatile beasts.

 

[kush]

Hi all,
I made some testing with my new matrix gt1000 vs my heavy Peavey classic 50 50...
I have an Axe FX II

Honestly I have to say that i'm a bit disappointed.
I've read all your nice posts about matrix and how it's better then any Tube amp with axe fx...
The result of a couple of intense hour of testing is:
Matrix is nice but as soon as I switch to tube amp I get the right tone!
A real tube tone...
Matrix mostly with medium gain patches is quite "hard" and and less "pounchy"
Peavey is more "silky" and soft but with more dynamics and headroom...
The difference is like a real 22 years girl and a plastic doll! :-((
I'hope to be wrong...
I know there are some tweeks to make more "Tube sounding" Axe patches but my question is: why some of you is so happy of matrix sound "out of the box"?

Albion

I'm not trying to discount what you're saying, but my experience wasn't exactly the same as yours.

I received my GT1000 today and spent a bit of time comparing it to running 4CM into the loop of my THD Flexi 50 and 2x12 cab with greenbacks, and the differences were pretty minimal, and that was without any tweaking on the patch at all. The Flexi is known for it's power section and does a pretty good job letting the tone of the different amp sims shine though, I've always run it with amps sims on and cab sims off and it's sounded great. Anyways, I only had about 45 minutes to compare today, but I was extremely impressed with the tone and feel of the Matrix amp compared to the Flexi. With just a bit of tweaking I have no doubt I'll get them sounding close enough to be splitting hairs.

I'm a mid-gain player so I was a bit apprehensive about the Matrix after reading this post, and this is my first time using a dedicated power amp with the Axe FX, I've always played 4CM or through some low end Tannoy monitors, but I now know I won't have any problems at all. The Matrix totally exceeded my expectations. Sounded like my tube rig, and no offense to the Peavey, but the THD has some pretty smokin' tone. Albion, I think you need to play with the sag settings in your patch to get the squishy, bouncy feel of the Peavey.

 

[bleedthefreak]

I want to be a believer in the whole Matrix as good as tube... I do love my tube amps still after a year and half with the axe.
I also love the axe for what it can do. But, at high volumes what a high end tube amp sounds and feels like I just am unable to duplicate with the axe. I'm going to try out a Matrix again, this time a gt1500. The Fryette 2902 and Matrix will go head to head, toe to toe. I'm looking for what feels best to me not what is more convenient.

 

[kmanick]

Well I've had my Fryette 2/50/2 for a couple of days now and "re tweaked" my Matrix "based" power amp -> 2X12 patches, and the Fryette definitely adds
this girth and ...I don't know how to state this but this, upper harmonic "sparkle", it's not treble , or presence it's something else. I'm really digging it right now.
I don't find the actual sound between the Fryette and the Matrix night and day difference, but there is this "thing" that is there with the Fryette that is not there with the Matrix (and I've had the Matrix for a while now). I'm going to throw a quad of KT-77's into the Fryette next week (they are like a combination of an El-34 and a 6L6, should be be even more "neutral", I've used them in other amps before ,love em) My Recto patches sound much more real thru the Fryette than they do with the Matrix.
The difference with my Marshall based patches is marginal (except with the Atomica Hi, that amp really benefits from the El-34 power section).
My lower gain and clean patches all sound gorgeous thru both amp so I'd give the win there to the Matrix (due to 1U and the light weight)
but with high gain patches the Fryette is definitely "helping" the sound and feel.
After this weekend I am going to do some more experimenting using sag and Xformer match etc thru the matrix to see if I can recreate that "thing" the Fryette is
bringing to the table. I mean 1u really is more convenient so I'd like to be able to make it 'work for me".

 

[Shask]

Well I've had my Fryette 2/50/2 for a couple of days now and "re tweaked" my Matrix "based" power amp -> 2X12 patches, and the Fryette definitely adds
this girth and ...I don't know how to state this but this, upper harmonic "sparkle", it's not treble , or presence it's something else. I'm really digging it right now.
I don't find the actual sound between the Fryette and the Matrix night and day difference, but there is this "thing" that is there with the Fryette that is not there with the Matrix (and I've had the Matrix for a while now). I'm going to throw a quad of KT-77's into the Fryette next week (they are like a combination of an El-34 and a 6L6, should be be even more "neutral", I've used them in other amps before ,love em) My Recto patches sound much more real thru the Fryette than they do with the Matrix.
The difference with my Marshall based patches is marginal (except with the Atomica Hi, that amp really benefits from the El-34 power section).
My lower gain and clean patches all sound gorgeous thru both amp so I'd give the win there to the Matrix (due to 1U and the light weight)
but with high gain patches the Fryette is definitely "helping" the sound and feel.
After this weekend I am going to do some more experimenting using sag and Xformer match etc thru the matrix to see if I can recreate that "thing" the Fryette is
bringing to the table. I mean 1u really is more convenient so I'd like to be able to make it 'work for me".

Interesting! Keep us posted!