VHT 2/50/2 vs. 2/90/2 for Axe FX?

[ibanez4life SZ!]

Hello there...I'm sure this topic has been beat to death here, but I'd love to here the most recent opinions for my fellow gear hounds!

I'm going to give the Axe FX one last shot playing out...this time with a dedicated tube power amp...SS sounded awesome, but I couldn't get it to cut through the mix/loud enough with my drummer, FRFR really didn't do it for me, and running it through the return of my Mark IV was pretty cool.....not very practical though, and though the tubes helped, I felt like there was a lot of unnecessary coloring going on with this method.

So, how do these two power amps compare? I've always ran 100W amps in the past, which inclines me towards the 2/90/2...never really dealt with 50 watters...I play high gain metal/hard rock with a HARD hitting drummer.

Appreciate your input!

Eric

 

[iceman]

More headroom and a less pronounced midrange with the 2/90/2 so I would lean that way for use with the AxeFx. However, with a regular tube preamp I would go with the 2/50/2. I find it has a 'sweeter' voicing more suitable for imparting coloration to a guitar signal. Yes I've owned both.

 

[smilefan]

Get the 2/90/2. It is clearer and has more headroom and punch than
the 2/50/2. For general blues/rock duties the 50 will kick ass,
but for metal you need the big guns.

 

[<MACHINE>]

I've had both and think the 2/90/2 would be the better choice as well. For me the clarity and punch was better on the 2/90/2...not that the 2/50/2 was "unclear" or "not punchy" by any means...just not quite as useful with the AxeFx. Both are VERY loud.

I would still have the 2/90/2 if I weren't so lazy...I got the Randall RT2/50 so I never had to unrack to re-tube and/or bias again :lol:

IMO the RT2/50 kicks ass as well tone wise...so no loss.

 

[pisquano]

can someone explain me how does the 2.50 power rating stand against an ART SLA1 bridged (260W)?

I have the ART in bridge mode and play with a 60W 2X12 and it's really loud: as I've seen it's not possible to bridge the 2.50, will the 2.50 running mono be as loud? :?:

 

[GuitarDojo]

I would still have the 2/90/2 if I weren't so lazy...I got the Randall RT2/50 so I never had to unrack to re-tube and/or bias again :lol:

IMO the RT2/50 kicks ass as well tone wise...so no loss.

I wonder what your boy "GT" would say about it. :lol:

 

[<MACHINE>]

I would still have the 2/90/2 if I weren't so lazy...I got the Randall RT2/50 so I never had to unrack to re-tube and/or bias again :lol:

IMO the RT2/50 kicks ass as well tone wise...so no loss.

I wonder what your boy "GT" would say about it. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

A long winded bag of jibberjabber maybe :lol:

 

[paulmapp8306]

can someone explain me how does the 2.50 power rating stand against an ART SLA1 bridged (260W)?

I have the ART in bridge mode and play with a 60W 2X12 and it's really loud: as I've seen it's not possible to bridge the 2.50, will the 2.50 running mono be as loud? :?:

Fairly well TBH. I used to use the Art SLA-1 bridged into a 60W 2x12 as well. The last year Ive used the VHT 2:50:2.

Its not quite as loud, though the ARTs power was more for clean headroom. Because theres no peak indication on the VHT, and I dont want to start getting PA saturation/clipping (and therefore colour) i havent really pushed it. It is plently loud enough to gig though (in my situation at least which isnt in a rediculously loud band).

The VHT gives 62 Watts in class A/B and 50 in Class A. Class A sounds sweater, but A/B has more headroom 9and cutts better too IMO) so thats how I run it.

Ignoring volume (and weight - the suckers heavey), I personally think the VHT sounds quite a bit better, and more detailed than the Art.