Best Pick For Solid State Amp

[Rob]

According to the good friends over on letstalkguild.com for my D-35 Guild with a LRBaggs in the slot pick-up wire I should be leaning towards a solid state over tube for my next acoustic amp.
Now with so many out there in the 90-110 watt range I am hoping some experts which will kick in advice as to a brand and model. Just looking to replace my old 65 watt solid state UNIVOX (don't laugh) - its working pretty fair but not a whole lot options as to the range of sound it produces. Also volume is lacking just a touch in a large room like full basement rec-room. Already ruled out Belinger anything due to negative feedback from my help over on the Guild site like of main boards failing and poor workmanship. Heard good things about Yorkville AM-100 but not sure if it is solid state? Also good things about Roland ! -Rob

[Ray Hughes]

My first choice would be that new L.R. Baggs acoustic reference amplifier. Sounds absolutely killer. Sound spread is amazing. 220 watts. The tone is a little colored, but in a way I like. Expensive though. My second choice are the Roland AC lines. Response is a bit flatter than the Baggs, and they do A LOT of cool things. We've had a bunch of different amps come through our store but these ones stick out. And we sell a ton of them, soooo for whatever thats worth. Good luck... -Ray

[Russell Vance]

I have a brace of high end amps in my repair shop which I use for testing - but the amp I always go to when I want to feel good is my little Roland - good emmulation and plenty of onboard effects - sounds great and is ultra reliable (I use it as a footrest under my work bench). It does electric and acoustic voicing competently. Agree you should stay away from Behringer which has issues you should not have to get involved with (nicest I can be about this brand) and with which I have personal experience. Rusty.

[Rob]

Thanks so far gang with suggestions. Looks like so far Roland is the winner to take a serious look at.Will have to se who is selling them in my area and on the web but Iknow shipping from the USA to Ontario can really sting you so local within forty miles or so is my preference.

[Jeffrey L. Suits]

Can't go wrong w/ Roland AC60.

[Rob]

Thanks Jeffrey -Do you think that even though I am dropping 5 WATTS from my old UNIVOX 65watt that new technology acually gives you a lot more volume bang for my buck? My guess is the Roland would indeed appear to give me a little more punch which is all that I want other than a little more high end range which Iam sure the Roland -AC-60 would deliver ,does that sound like two yes answers to those question marks? -Rob

[Rob Mercure]

Wattage is only poorly correlated to sound perception in ampliers and the rule of thumb is that you have to have ten times the power to double the percieved volume. Changing to a more efficient speaker will do more for improving volume than more power and adding sattelite speakers will also - the greater the radiating sufrace the more volume perception. IMHO there is no benefit to an "acoustic" amp as an acoustic guitar doesn't have any greater frequency or dynamic range than an electric guitar - it's primarily a marketing niche. I repair 'em, I build 'em, I mod 'em, and I play 'em and a 1967 Fender Vibrolux Reverb is my primary stage amp to my Martin D-25K - and if I need more stage volume I use a 12" Electrovoice speaker in an old Peavey combo cabinet. If I place it on the other side of the stage I sound as "loud" as one of my band mates with a 100W SS amplifier. And for my money the sound of the distortion artifact from a tube amp are more "natural" and "acoustic" than the harsh sterile ones from a SS amp. Gotta go but I may add more to this later as it's a subject that I've had to "train" my customers on for years. Of course the amp that sounds the best for you with your particular guitar and style is what you want - plainly and simply - and there really is no "best" for everybody. (but definitely avoid Berringer like the plague as the circuit boards are made from a good grade of toilet paper - I did warranty for them and most of there equipment is "return to factory for replacement," that is, it isn't repairable!).

Rob

[Rob]

Thanks for the input as that widens my search down the road even though still want to hear my guitar through a Roland. Think I get your drift that a acoustics range is simply being amplified by the tone range control on the articular amp its plugged into. Also really should be thinking of moving from my 10 inch speaker to at least one 12 inch if not two for the volume. For a guitar like my D-35 Guild which with my tin ear sounds like it lacks just a tab in the trebel end of the scale do these rules of thumb still apply Rob? -nanccinut

[Rob Mercure]

I'm not sure what perzactly your asking about the D-35 - could you elaborate a bit please?

Sometimes the strangest things pop up when I'm not sleeping soundly and last night some of this replayed and I decided to post the following:

For all practical porpoises ("common sense cetaceans) there are three ways to amplify a guitar. The first is the traditional microphone with the two most common variants being an electrodynamic mic and a condensor mic (which requires a power supply and almost always has a built in preamp); the second is a pressure transducer of some type either being placed between the saddle and top or attached to the body (occasionally placed in the neck) the commonest being some sort of piezo pickup; and then the electromagnetic pickup (there were some "capacitor" pickups being distinquished from the "condensor" type in using partially metalized nylon strings that were charged with a fairly high DC voltage - insulated from the player - but this type was uncommon and as best I know abandoned so I won't deal with it). The classic microphone is, in my humble opinion (IMHO) the only manner of achieving a truly "acoustic" sound signature which I define as being as close to the sound of my guitar non-amplifier. The problem with mics is that you either have to settle for a fixed arrangement to provide high volumes that doesn't allow the instrument to be moved around (for this I like something like an SM 58 on the soundhole and an SM 57 on the 12th fret mixed about 60/40) or some sort of an internal mic or one attached to the table externally which, while allowing freedom of movement, feedback like all hell depending on the guitar's position in relation to speakers - both "private" amplifier and mains/monitor.
Piezo have, to my sad realization, become associated with the "acoustic" sound and there are some marketed for placement in a solid body electric to sound "acoustic." IMHO these sound almost nothing like my guitar in open are and are "quacky" with an unnatural compression of the signal which is easily demonstrated on an oscilloscope - if you haven't figured it out by now I pretty much detest the "peizo" sound and totally reject any attempt to equate it with an "acoustic" sound which has pretty much only been achieved with free air micropnones (the Baggs "I-Beam" seems to be the best of these worst of pickups). Lastly there are the "traditional" electromagnetic pickups which I've accepted as the best way of allowing an acoustic guitar to "compete" in a band environment - I use the Fishman Rare Earth humbucker which makes my Martin sound "sorta kinda" like a hollow body archtop acoustically - a compromise I admit but physics defines corporeal reality.
To return to amplifiers let's assign the traditional microphones to being part of the stage sound system and not part of the stage guitarist's kit (although I break this "rule" personally having also been a "sound man" for a number of years).
This leaves us with the attached condensor mic which is a low-impedance device which with it's built in preamp has plenty of voltage to drive a traditional guitar amp high impedance input (might need an XLR to 1/4" adapter - shouldn't require an impedance matching transformer); the piezo "quaker" which is an extremely high impedance device almost useless without a preamp/buffer to match impedance (although I did modiry an input on my Fender to take one of these directly - I now use it for other purposes); and the EM pickup which is a medium impedance device usually fed into a high-impedance guitar input (we're ignoring the occasional low-impedance EM pickup almost always found on solid-body electric guitars such as the Les Paul "Recording" and others. But maybe I should address, quickly, impedance: high impedance devices produce somewhat high signal voltages and very little current, low impedance deviced produce very little voltage and somewhat higher current - you can feed a low impedance device into a high impecane input with loss of signal level but not quality - if you send a high impedance device into a low impedance input you probably overdrive the designed for voltage levels for the input and somewhat "short out" the high impedance device while degrading the quality and frequency response. Low into high is OK - high into low is "verbotten."
So almost all pickups can be fed into a high impedance input the only benefit of having a low-impedance input on an amp is to either accomodate a stand-type microphone or to be able to send a signal a long way from the source to the amplifier (low-impedance also "shorts out" noise and hum thus being the standard for stage sound systems) - whether you need a low-impedance input on an "acoustic" amp or not is truly a matter individual specific need as almost any pickup you use will gladly feed a high impedance input.
I'm running out of time on this library computer (home wifi is down) so I'll hit on two other points: tone controls and "foo foo" effects. One nice feature of "acoustic" amps is that many have some sort of graphic EQ type tone controls - these might be nice but if you want to use a less expensive regular guitar amp these can be added externally in a "box" or rack mount and it's kinda funny to see guitarists having both a rack with full graphic, octave, and parametric EQ as in addition to the numerous amp EQ controls - a bit of redundancy and and "overkill" - for my stage use my Fender has only the "Bass" and "Treble" controls - not even a "Mid" (for a great "look" at how tone controls really work go to the "Duncan's" amp site and down load the tone control simulator - you will probably find that most amplifier tone controls don't work as you'd expect them to).
Lastly, due to time, many "acoustic" amps feature built in phase shifters, and delay, and all sorts of garbage. I reject this stuff as being "anti-acoustic" - at least I've never been able to make my Martin sound this way around a campfire - and, as already stated, "foo foo." Most big name musicians when they use this stuff have a stage hand trigger and stop it using the house sound system. And since the more complicated you make an amp the more that Murphy comes to dominate you life these devices are better as discrete "stomp boxes" which allow you to remove and quickly replace a defective one without crippling your whole stage amp set up and also to allow you to try different ones (every musician I know know who uses these has a box of discarded ones) and add new ones (not to mention that I personally like the old style analog tape loop type delays but that might just be "old fartism.")
Gotta go - out of time - if this is helpful let me know and I'll return to it.

Rob