What's so special about Matrix GT1000?

[joegold]

I too was irritated by the way the development of the Matrix GT line of amps was being portrayed here by a couple of forum members and in Matrix's promo materials.
Matrix has an amp line called the XT which was designed to be a very powerful and lightweight solution for P.A. systems.
Then a couple of Axe users, who were happier using a Fryette tube power amp than their XTs, started talking to Matrix about ways they could mod the XTs so that they sounded and felt more like their Fryettes - and evidently the Mastrix people went along with this and the GT line was born.
I've never really gotten a straight answer from anyone at Matrix or elsewhere as to what exactly they have done to accomplish that stated goal.
The things I have seen described seem trivial to me.
E.g. They lowered the input sensitivity for the GT line, but the Axe could easily drive the XTs into clipping anyway if played full out.
The Axe is capable of driving pretty much *any* power amp into clipping.
They also mentioned some sort of voodoo about altering the attack characteristics for the GTs.
Whatever.

So, when I first bought my Ultra I tried out various ss power amps (Yorkville stuff, QSC PLX, ART, etc.) and at least one tube power amp (Mesa Simul-Satellite).
I tried some FRFR solutions too back then but settled on using my Ultra with real guitar cabs, EVM-12Ls in open back cabs, like i'd been doing most of my musical life.
The ss amps all sounded better than the Mesa which was imparting too much of its own sonic signature onto everything and went into breakup at too low a volume when I played block chords or with a dark jazz tone.

I settled on the SLA1.
It was only 1U and very short which meant I could go down to a 4-space short rack from my previous 5-space full-sized rack.
It sounded as good or better than the other ss amps.
The fact that's it's Class AB probably has something to do with that.
The Yorkville and QSC amps are Class H.
It had enough power (100 watts per side into 8ohms) for most of the gigs I tend to do in stereo and if I ever needed more power I could bridge it (260 watts into 8ohms) and play in mono.
While not exactly lightweight it's not that heavy either.
It's cooling fan was not very loud and on many of my jazz gigs a loud fan could be an issue.
But the main reason I settled on the SLA1 was the form factor.
The Ultra can be dialed in such that any of the above mentioned amps can be made to sound real good.
I've never really been a tube snob and have used ss amps (Roland, Polytone, Acoustic Image for jazz and Pearce which covers all the bases and which I used throughout most of the 80s and early 90s) and tube amps (Fender, Marshall, Music Man hybrids, Dean Markley, Acoustic, and of course Mesa which I used from 1993 until I bought the Ultra) at various times.
I don't do a lot of gigs where I have to cop this or that tone from this or that recording with someone else playing.
I usually can get away with just sounding like me or with my own take on what some other player played on some recording.
All I care about is whether the amp I'm playing through allows me to get a decent tone so I can do that.

About a year later I saw a Bryston 2B LP Pro on eBay for $400 and snapped it up.
Its got even less power than the SLA1 (60 per side, 200 bridged) and is a bit heavier while still being only 1U but it just sounded WAY more musical than the SLA1 and the illusion of the Fractal sounding like a real tube guitar amp was even stronger than it had been before.
It has no cooling fan at all, so no fan noise.
So for the last few years I've been using the Bryston with my Fractals.
Based on their reputation I imagined that I was hearing the best tones the Axe was capable of producing.
I still believe that to be true.

A couple of years ago now I bought my II and the illusion was now even stronger.
But I started playing with a rather loud drummer again and the Bryston just wasn't up to the task in stereo, so I started entertaining the idea of grabbing something with more power.
But it had to sound close to the Bryston.
I didn't want to take a step back tone-wise. I just wanted more level available.
It had to be light-weight and hopefully only 1U.
The fan noise had to be minimal.
I had learned not to trust Class D amps for guitar (the top end never sounds right to me) so I was looking for something that was Class AB.
The *only* power amps that are out there and are readily available appear to be the Matrix amps.
I was leaning towards an XT800 even though everybody under the sun was recommending a GT.
But I was concerned about fan noise having heard that Matrix went to the trouble of making a 2U quiet fan version of the GT1000 specifically because some folks found the fan noise of the 1U GT and XT amps to be too loud.
I also wanted enough power to possibly use the amp to drive an FRFR passive monitor at some point and the XT1000 and GT1000 both looked better suited to that task to me.
The XT1000 however is only available as 2U and even though I wanted the quieter fan I wanted it to be 1U even more.

So I took a gamble and bought a GT1000 about a month ago now, basically because there's nothing else out there that has the same form factor, power rating, and power Class.
It compares favourably to the Bryston but to me the Bryston still sounds noticeably better, especially on the top end.
It sounds WAY better than the SLA1, which I still have.
The fan noise is just low enough that it hasn't bothered me yet.
All in all, it seems like a pretty good fit and I'm happy I bought it thus far.
I'd like to AB it sometime with an XT1000 or XT800 just to see what all that GT hype is really about.
But my GT1000 sounds real good and is capable of getting REALLY LOUD.
I've got more power, for a guitar cab rig, than I will ever need.
If I'm not careful I could easily fry my EVM-12Ls.
And it's made my little 4-space rack even more lightweight.

 

[LVC]

.... So I took a gamble and bought a GT1000 about a month ago now, basically because there's nothing else out there that has the same form factor, power rating, and power Class.
It compares favourably to the Bryston but to me the Bryston still sounds noticeably better, especially on the top end.
It sounds WAY better than the SLA1, which I still have.
The fan noise is just low enough that it hasn't bothered me yet.
All in all, it seems like a pretty good fit and I'm happy I bought it thus far.
I'd like to AB it sometime with an XT1000 or XT800 just to see what all that GT hype is really about.
But my GT1000 sounds real good and is capable of getting REALLY LOUD.
I've got more power, for a guitar cab rig, than I will ever need.
If I'm not careful I could easily fry my EVM-12Ls.
And it's made my little 4-space rack even more lightweight.

Glad to see a player of your caliber digging it. I have yet to try the GT1000FX with an EVM. I have a couple of old OEMs in the basement collecting dust from my D-amp days.

PS: I just ordered your book

 

[plexi59]

So regarding CLRs, would they be OK for e.g. keys as well? Could I just pump everything through them or are they useful mostly as guitar monitors? Looking at the specs it seems that FR is really FR in this case, but I wonder if that's the right thing to be doing with them. I mostly see people use wedges on the floor.

 

[PacoCasanovasOld]

They lowered the input sensitivity for the GT line, but the Axe could easily drive the XTs into clipping anyway if played full out.
The Axe is capable of driving pretty much *any* power amp into clipping.

Hey Joe

The AxeFx will drive "any" power amp into clipping. All these blahblah from many manufacturers who stated their gear as +20dBu Input Sensitivity has nothing to do with their effective headroom at the output. It just telling you, that their input buffer amp is capable to run with a +20dBu Signal (about 21.9Vpp). The important thing on poweramps is the amp gain. My Matrix Q12a aka the GM50 module offers approx. 36dB Gain. That tells you the difference between input and output voltage of the amplifier in dB (Math: (Output-Voltage/Input-Voltage) log x 20 =Amp Gain), it has nothing to do with the level knob, which is basically just a variable input sensitivity. To reach the maximum output swing with a sine signal (which has a crest factor of 1.41 or 3dB), your maximum input signal should not reach 0.55V RMS which is -3dBu otherwise the GM50 will clip, when the input sensitivity is on full!

Out in the PA world, there is a simple rule when working with poweramps without a system controller - never use them above 70% scale of the variable input sensitivity - never turn them on full, because your amp would not have enough clean headroom. Music signal has a crest factor from 20dB so that means there is a average value of signal 20dB below the peak power which is 1.41 times higher than the nominal RMS power rating. That's why almost every company in the industry conduct their long term tests with 1/8 of the rated RMS power - just to be sure the amp produces no clip driven by normal music signals (or similar test signals).

I can't tell the difference between Matrix XT and GT series, I think this has to do with different input sensitivity and different amp gain, because the general standard in the PA world is between 26 - 32dB amp gain.

Regarding Amp Class:

Early Class D without DSP correction is very crictical in top end signals (phase distortion heavy) - most Class D modules today uses DSP power as an improvement of that fact. There is even Class D in HIFI situations - (Class T by Tripath anyone?)....Class D clipping is very different from clipping on traditional Class A/B design - not just on a fact sheet, also audible......more for the worst than better, just in case you might wonder. So this would be also DSP controlled by using limiter algorithms. Every DSP also needs A/D and D/A converters, the whole process also generate more latency (this is the time delay between in- to output). Class D is not a digital amp by design (the whole theory is based on frequency modulation and a classic low pass filter at the output is used to transform it back into amplitude altered signal) but it get often combined with DSPs to avoid clipping and improve their transfer characteristics...

Class H is a modern attempt, more energy efficient design of a class A/B amp, just add more energy from the powersupply if needed on higher levels. It improves the weight/power rating ratio, because their power supply doesn't need to deliver high energy at all time.....
There are simple class H design with two energy stages, bigger and more sophisticated designs used three or even four stages. A very special design here goes for the LabGruppen HF-switched Class A/B Amps, which called Class TD. At their idle point, the supply rails were at +/- 7.5VDC and the energy demand is fully controlled by the input signal. This gives you the power up to 6kW amp out from a simple 800W Class A/B design. That also made them very light weight compared to other similar rated amps.....

Cheers
Paco


PS: +1000 for Pearce Amps (they use the famous (and discontinued) Hitachi MOSFET output stage (2SK137 / 2SJ56) which sound awesome!! - same circuit was used on the old session amps, killer amps! If somebody needs good replacements, PM me...)

 

[plexi59]

BTW, Class H is really just several Class AB output stages stacked on top of one another with the help of an elaborate, multi-rail power supply. This is done to increase efficiency, and therefore reduce the cooling needs.

 

[PacoCasanovasOld]

And here is the reason why MOSFET Class AB amps sounding somehow "more organic" - their sonic behavior when pushed into clipping is more "forgiving" than on other solid state design soundwisely spoken!

 

[TexasAxeSlinger]

Thanks LVC! I appreciate it.

 

[PacoCasanovasOld]

BTW, Class H is really just several Class AB output stages stacked on top of one another with the help of an elaborate, multi-rail power supply. This is done to increase efficiency, and therefore reduce the cooling needs.

I just said it different to made it simpler to adopt to "non-technician-aficionados". It's a multi rail power supply but not stacked output stages

 

[LVC]

Man great stuff Paco!

 

[sam]

So regarding CLRs, would they be OK for e.g. keys as well? Could I just pump everything through them or are they useful mostly as guitar monitors? Looking at the specs it seems that FR is really FR in this case, but I wonder if that's the right thing to be doing with them. I mostly see people use wedges on the floor.

They should be amazing for keys. They absolutely kill for vocals as well as mix/song playback.

 

[joegold]

Hey Joe

The AxeFx will drive "any" power amp into clipping. All these blahblah from many manufacturers who stated their gear as +20dBu Input Sensitivity has nothing to do with their effective headroom at the output. It just telling you, that their input buffer amp is capable to run with a +20dBu Signal (about 21.9Vpp). The important thing on poweramps is the amp gain. My Matrix Q12a aka the GM50 module offers approx. 36dB Gain. That tells you the difference between input and output voltage of the amplifier in dB (Math: (Output-Voltage/Input-Voltage) log x 20 =Amp Gain), it has nothing to do with the level knob, which is basically just a variable input sensitivity. To reach the maximum output swing with a sine signal (which has a crest factor of 1.41 or 3dB), your maximum input signal should not reach 0.55V RMS which is -3dBu otherwise the GM50 will clip, when the input sensitivity is on full!

Out in the PA world, there is a simple rule when working with poweramps without a system controller - never use them above 70% scale of the variable input sensitivity - never turn them on full, because your amp would not have enough clean headroom. Music signal has a crest factor from 20dB so that means there is a average value of signal 20dB below the peak power which is 1.41 times higher than the nominal RMS power rating. That's why almost every company in the industry conduct their long term tests with 1/8 of the rated RMS power - just to be sure the amp produces no clip driven by normal music signals (or similar test signals).

I can't tell the difference between Matrix XT and GT series, I think this has to do with different input sensitivity and different amp gain, because the general standard in the PA world is between 26 - 32dB amp gain.

Regarding Amp Class:

Early Class D without DSP correction is very crictical in top end signals (phase distortion heavy) - most Class D modules today uses DSP power as an improvement of that fact. There is even Class D in HIFI situations - (Class T by Tripath anyone?)....Class D clipping is very different from clipping on traditional Class A/B design - not just on a fact sheet, also audible......more for the worst than better, just in case you might wonder. So this would be also DSP controlled by using limiter algorithms. Every DSP also needs A/D and D/A converters, the whole process also generate more latency (this is the time delay between in- to output). Class D is not a digital amp by design (the whole theory is based on frequency modulation and a classic low pass filter at the output is used to transform it back into amplitude altered signal) but it get often combined with DSPs to avoid clipping and improve their transfer characteristics...

Class H is a modern attempt, more energy efficient design of a class A/B amp, just add more energy from the powersupply if needed on higher levels. It improves the weight/power rating ratio, because their power supply doesn't need to deliver high energy at all time.....
There are simple class H design with two energy stages, bigger and more sophisticated designs used three or even four stages. A very special design here goes for the LabGruppen HF-switched Class A/B Amps, which called Class TD. At their idle point, the supply rails were at +/- 7.5VDC and the energy demand is fully controlled by the input signal. This gives you the power up to 6kW amp out from a simple 800W Class A/B design. That also made them very light weight compared to other similar rated amps.....

Cheers
Paco


PS: +1000 for Pearce Amps (they use the famous (and discontinued) Hitachi MOSFET output stage (2SK137 / 2SJ56) which sound awesome!! - same circuit was used on the old session amps, killer amps! If somebody needs good replacements, PM me...)

Hi Paco

Thanks for all that info but I'm not really sure whether or not it impacts at all on anything I've said, mostly because I don't really understand much of what you've said.

Regarding input sensitivity...
The Matrix specs say that the GTs have a sensitivity of .775v.
They don't seem to have published this spec for the XTs but a forum member here has said that they are 1.5v.
1.5v does seem a bit high to me but then again I don't really know what exactly any of this means.
My Bryston and most other power amps for which I've seen specs for usually have an input sensitivity of .775v but I think I've seen one or two amps that use 1v.
1.5v does seem high and does seem to be non-standard.
My understanding of this spec is that when the power amp input sees this voltage the amp will put out its maximum output w/o clipping.
I've seen statements on the Fractal forums from Cliff and Jay Mitchell in the past that claim that the Axe is capable of delivering a sufficient voltage to drive any power amp *beyond* the power amp's maximum input w/o clipping.
So if this is correct then lowering the input sensitivity for the GT line of amps would appear to accomplish very little as far as using an Axe-FX with those amps.
Nobody wants to be driving their ss power amps into clipping.
But 1.5v does seem quite high and perhaps Cliff and Jay did not consider any amps with that high an input sensitivity when they made those statements.
I don't really know.

Regarding Class D audio quality...
I've had a few experiences with relatively modern Class D designs and they have always been disappointing on the top end.
I hope to one day hear a Class D amp that does not suffer from this, but that hasn't happened yet.

Regarding Class H...
Good to know.
Thanks.

It seems to me that in order for Matrix's claim that the GTs achieve a more tube-amp-like response than the XTs to be true that they must have tinkered somewhat with the things that affect the way attack transients are handled by the amp and I'm not sure if that is ultimately a good thing or not.
I don't see the Bryston engineers making any such statements.
Supposedly the XTs were designed to be true to the attack transients of the signals they amplify.
Why then should this be modified in some way because we're using it for guitar?
Doesn't make sense to me.
In my admittedly uninformed opinion flat is flat and the Matrix design philosophy for the GTs seems to involve some sort of a deviation from the typical meaning of flat.
But they sound good. So who cares really?

 

[Tone Seeker]

So I took a gamble and bought a GT1000 about a month ago now, basically because there's nothing else out there that has the same form factor, power rating, and power Class.
It compares favourably to the Bryston but to me the Bryston still sounds noticeably better, especially on the top end.
It sounds WAY better than the SLA1, which I still have.

joegold, thanks for your thoughts and comments. This is especially interesting to me as I can remember reading years ago Jay Mitchell's favourable thoughts on the Bryston and the improvements you had found using it with your Axe (I had considered the Bryston as an option before I went in-ears). Your Matrix GT comments are really interesting to me in that light.

Thanks.

Terry.

 

[LVC]

I had considered the Bryston as an option before I went in-ears.....

what model?

New I see these things go for a lot of money but their values drop off the charts used. Reason I am asking is that I am looking to get new speakers for my home office (thinking Adam 7s) -- but I see Bryston 2B-LP Stereo Power Amplifiers (60 watts) selling used for 25% their retail value.

thoughts?

Used Bryston with a good set of speakers or the Adams?

cost will probably come out the same.

 

[romanianreaper]

I'm not irritated, I just don't like to be fed bologna. I'm an engineer by training (EE/CS), I don't buy into marketing claims just because it says so on the manufacturer's site.

Understood. I guess I just don't see how this is any different than other companies that direct their marketing of products toward a certain type of consumer. I think the Matrix folks are just trying to make the point that they keep guitarists in mind with the GT1000FX and try to tailor it with the connections, flexibility, etc. that they will actually use.

The guys at Matrix have called me at home on several occasions and thoroughly explained their products and how to give me the best tone. I just think it is a great piece of gear.

 

[PacoCasanovasOld]

The Matrix specs say that the GTs have a sensitivity of .775v.

Dear Joe

Much thanks for your detailed answer....highly appreciated! :encouragement:

0.775V is 0dBu - this is the nominal input level in audio - the knob labeled "Gain" on the back of my GM50 has no scale - when put on approx. 1 o' clock it's possible to drive the GM50 with a Sine signal with 0dBu (0.775V) without drive it into clipping. That's were the GM50 produces 169W RMS @ 8Ohm load. I tested this myself with my measurement gear at my workshop. The maximum output voltage swing goes to 51Vp - which gives an average of 36.3V without clipping.
So I'm not sure if matrix called 0dBu their input sensitivity since this impossible to get a clean sine output when turning the level on full and feed the input with a 0.775V signal!

my tests saying: 0.55V when turning the knob on full / 0.775 when turning the knob at 1 o' clock (which is approx. 70% in a 270deg potentiometer scale) all related to a sine signal and max. clean output

Cheers
Paco

 

[markmusicman]

Hey Joe

The AxeFx will drive "any" power amp into clipping. All these blahblah from many manufacturers who stated their gear as +20dBu Input Sensitivity has nothing to do with their effective headroom at the output. It just telling you, that their input buffer amp is capable to run with a +20dBu Signal (about 21.9Vpp). The important thing on poweramps is the amp gain. My Matrix Q12a aka the GM50 module offers approx. 36dB Gain. That tells you the difference between input and output voltage of the amplifier in dB (Math: (Output-Voltage/Input-Voltage) log x 20 =Amp Gain), it has nothing to do with the level knob, which is basically just a variable input sensitivity. To reach the maximum output swing with a sine signal (which has a crest factor of 1.41 or 3dB), your maximum input signal should not reach 0.55V RMS which is -3dBu otherwise the GM50 will clip, when the input sensitivity is on full!

Out in the PA world, there is a simple rule when working with poweramps without a system controller - never use them above 70% scale of the variable input sensitivity - never turn them on full, because your amp would not have enough clean headroom. Music signal has a crest factor from 20dB so that means there is a average value of signal 20dB below the peak power which is 1.41 times higher than the nominal RMS power rating. That's why almost every company in the industry conduct their long term tests with 1/8 of the rated RMS power - just to be sure the amp produces no clip driven by normal music signals (or similar test signals).

I can't tell the difference between Matrix XT and GT series, I think this has to do with different input sensitivity and different amp gain, because the general standard in the PA world is between 26 - 32dB amp gain.

Regarding Amp Class:

Early Class D without DSP correction is very crictical in top end signals (phase distortion heavy) - most Class D modules today uses DSP power as an improvement of that fact. There is even Class D in HIFI situations - (Class T by Tripath anyone?)....Class D clipping is very different from clipping on traditional Class A/B design - not just on a fact sheet, also audible......more for the worst than better, just in case you might wonder. So this would be also DSP controlled by using limiter algorithms. Every DSP also needs A/D and D/A converters, the whole process also generate more latency (this is the time delay between in- to output). Class D is not a digital amp by design (the whole theory is based on frequency modulation and a classic low pass filter at the output is used to transform it back into amplitude altered signal) but it get often combined with DSPs to avoid clipping and improve their transfer characteristics...

Class H is a modern attempt, more energy efficient design of a class A/B amp, just add more energy from the powersupply if needed on higher levels. It improves the weight/power rating ratio, because their power supply doesn't need to deliver high energy at all time.....
There are simple class H design with two energy stages, bigger and more sophisticated designs used three or even four stages. A very special design here goes for the LabGruppen HF-switched Class A/B Amps, which called Class TD. At their idle point, the supply rails were at +/- 7.5VDC and the energy demand is fully controlled by the input signal. This gives you the power up to 6kW amp out from a simple 800W Class A/B design. That also made them very light weight compared to other similar rated amps.....

Cheers
Paco


PS: +1000 for Pearce Amps (they use the famous (and discontinued) Hitachi MOSFET output stage (2SK137 / 2SJ56) which sound awesome!! - same circuit was used on the old session amps, killer amps! If somebody needs good replacements, PM me...)

Are you referring to the Pearce amps made by Dan Pearce out of Buffalo NY? I still have my Pearce G2x preamp, what a fantastic preamp. Just encase your interested I saw a Pearce amplifier and speaker for sale on EBay two days ago. There is also a Pearce bass preamp on there for sale. A few months ago I guy was selling a bunch of the preamps he had purchased them for his studio they were selling for around $650.00

 

[Tone Seeker]

what model?

It may have been the same one joegold has, but I can't remember for sure. That said, I seem to recall it being 2U and heavy enough that I was concerned about the weight.

New I see these things go for a lot of money but their values drop off the charts used. Reason I am asking is that I am looking to get new speakers for my home office (thinking Adam 7s) -- but I see Bryston 2B-LP Stereo Power Amplifiers (60 watts) selling used for 25% their retail value.

thoughts?

Used Bryston with a good set of speakers or the Adams?

cost will probably come out the same.

All I can offer up is that I picked up a set of Dynaudio BM5a's a few years ago. Working with a small, self-contained set of near-fields has worked out really well for me.

Terry.

 

[PacoCasanovasOld]

Dear Markmusicman

I'm not sure - because the amp I might remember being a Pearce Amp, is very very old - and the Hitachi Mosfets were 2SK176 (not 137...sorry my mistake) and 2J56 - they were in that amp I remember of.....I couldn't find a picture of it yet on google....mmh....

I also had a polytone solid state amp myself for some years (a Megabrute - super small with a huge and warm clean sound - awesome tone). There are some old H&H solid state amps from the 70s which also sounded very good (they had a green backlight at the front plate, couldn't remember the name of the amps). Very musical sounding amps....and of corse, LAB Series Amps (L5 or L7) distributed by Norlin music in the earlier 80s. Parts of the circuit were designed by Bob Moog!!! Awesome sounding amps. I had some of them in for repair over the past 15yrs.

 

[joegold]

Are you referring to the Pearce amps made by Dan Pearce out of Buffalo NY? I still have my Pearce G2x preamp, what a fantastic preamp. Just encase your interested I saw a Pearce amplifier and speaker for sale on EBay two days ago. There is also a Pearce bass preamp on there for sale. A few months ago I guy was selling a bunch of the preamps he had purchased them for his studio they were selling for around $650.00

Yes, that's the Pearce company I'm talking about.
I originally bought a G1a combo amp, circa 1986.
I even had Dan Pearce do a few mods on mine at the Buffalo factory that I visited several times.
I'm from Toronto so it's just a couple of hours away.
I sold the G1a head to Reg Schwager but kept the cabinet, circa 1992.
It was replaced with a Mesa MKIII and a Simul-Satellite.
I almost bought a G2r at the time but I was trying get some session work and it seemed smarter to have a real tube amp at that time.
Eventually I bought a Triaxis and used it in stereo with the MKIII's power amp and the Satellite.
These Pearce cabs have a 2 space rack on top for any Pearce head or power amp, like the A1 that I also used to use when playing stereo back then.
FWIW My 1st album/cassette release, Time's Square, from 1988 was all done with that Pearce rig and a Strat with EMG SAs and an SPC.
My 2nd album and 1st CD release, A Strange Little Tune, was done with the Triaxis/Satellite rig and a Frankenstrat with passive pickups.

About 10 years ago I got pissed off at the jazz tones I was getting from my Triaxis/Simul-Satellite rig that I'd been using since 1993 (the Pearce was OK for rock too but not as good as the Mesa stuff I replaced it with) and asked Reg if I could borrow the head back to see if it really sounded as good as I remembered.
But in the months prior to that I also had a Polytone and then an Acoustic Image Clarus through a Raezer's Edge 2X10 cab, just for jazz.
Meh on both of those.
But Reg's G1a did sound as good as I'd remembered, so I started looking around for another used Pearce amp online.
[FWIW I found out after I'd bought my Ultra that the reason my Triaxis jazz tone was always a bit too bright was because its 2 Clean Modes both have a hard-wired bright switch that can't be switched off.]
I actually found a G2r in a pawn shop in Texas and bought that.
I think it was only $200.
But when I got it home the built-in digital effects board, by Alesis, wasn't working properly.
I did some research online and found out the likely culprit and tried to fix it myself but I actually fried the FX board completely in the process.
Later on I found another G2r on eBay (closer to $700 this time) and it works great.
I keep the first one for spare parts.
The Pearce G2r in the original Pearce cabinet (way back when, I replaced the stock EVM-12S that it came with with an EVM-12L), in an open back configuration (it can also be run closed back and has a port) is very satisfying as a jazz rig.
I never had to use it on a pop/rock oriented gig though.
I think the G1s sound even better for jazz but they have less gain available for rock.
I still use the G2r on small jazz gigs where I don't want to lug the Axe and my pedal-board etc.

But I'm getting even better tones from my Axe II and whatever I run that through.
I kept the Triaxis rig for pop/rock gigs until I got the Ultra in 2008 and then I sold it.
But I still have the Simul-Satellite.
It's currently in my teaching room at Humber College.

I bet that's more than you ever wanted to know about me or my gear.

 

[joegold]

Dear Markmusicman

I'm not sure - because the amp I might remember being a Pearce Amp, is very very old - and the Hitachi Mosfets were 2SK176 (not 137...sorry my mistake) and 2J56 - they were in that amp I remember of.....I couldn't find a picture of it yet on google....mmh....

I also had a polytone solid state amp myself for some years (a Megabrute - super small with a huge and warm clean sound - awesome tone). There are some old H&H solid state amps from the 70s which also sounded very good (they had a green backlight at the front plate, couldn't remember the name of the amps). Very musical sounding amps....and of corse, LAB Series Amps (L5 or L7) distributed by Norlin music in the earlier 80s. Parts of the circuit were designed by Bob Moog!!! Awesome sounding amps. I had some of them in for repair over the past 15yrs.

Dan Pearce was also involved with the Lab Series amps I believe.

Later on, after his own company folded, he went to ART and designed a 3-channel stereo amp that I think was also FRFR or partially FRFR too because the 3rd channel was for an acoustic guitar.
Those amps weren't around very long though.
Supposedly they were pretty decent.
I forget the model name/number.