Yamaha THR100

guitarfishbay

Just a thought - surely if you use the line out but without an IR you could wire this up to a bigger power amp?

My only concern is feel at volume, not volume - in my own tests I've found the EHX 44 magnum into an 8 ohm cab has more than enough volume for even a loud guitar band. But at its 40ish watts there's no real low end at higher volume, well noticeably less than I get from my Matrix GT1000FX. Just a concern if this is more like a 60 watt amp - I don't have a reference point that makes me confident it'd be powerful enough for my tastes.

ICBM

guitarfishbay said:

Just a thought - surely if you use the line out but without an IR you could wire this up to a bigger power amp?

My only concern is feel at volume, not volume - in my own tests I've found the EHX 44 magnum into an 8 ohm cab has more than enough volume for even a loud guitar band. But at its 40ish watts there's no real low end at higher volume, well noticeably less than I get from my Matrix GT1000FX. Just a concern if this is more like a 60 watt amp - I don't have a reference point that makes me confident it'd be powerful enough for my tastes.

That's something that bothers me a bit too - I don't need that much power, but if it's more like a 40-50W amp (which it must be at most, if the 60W power consumption is correct) then it may not have much clean headroom at band volume.

It's both disappointing that they exaggerate the power rating like this (again, assuming that the power consumption spec is accurate) and puzzling, since with this sort of technology it would be easy and not very expensive to simply make it a lot more powerful - eg a true 100W output or more.

rossyamaha

OK I can't comment on the power thing because I have no idea about all that stuff. It makes sense what is being said but I can't comment either way. 

I did however want to share an experience I had today with you all. 

So when THR was first released, I gigged it exclusively for a month. Was very very happy. Had to give my sample back for a show. Went back to using the Lonestar Classic 212. Remembered how awesome it sounds and was very happy. Been using it ever since. That has changed after today. For whatever reason, despite being happy with the tone at my last gig, I decided to try something. Somehow I completely cocked up some of my core tones and couldn't find them again. Any chance I have had this week I have been tweaking trying to get it back again. Finally found it tonight. Unfortunately it's too late. 

I was doing some training today with a dealer basically dialled in all sounds I've been looking for in a matter of seconds. And they are all more dynamic than what I get from the Mesa. I even found the tone I hadn't so far managed to find which is the really thick Mesa Mark series gain. Add to this the fact I was running the dual head through the 112 cab, the rig was tiny and lightweight. Hadn't spent any time with the 112 before today and was stunned. Clear but fat and loud as hell. If you want an idea of the volume it was kicking out check out PMT Birmingham's Facebook page. They posted a quick video. The amp wasn't even turned up that loud. 

Thats me done now. I didn't think I could give the Lonestar up as my main amp. I think it's now going in the flightcase and not coming out for a while!

polotska

I’m curious how the THR100 works with different speakers/cabs—does it fare better with relatively neutral sounding speakers than with something more colored, like G12M-25s?

On a similar note: I took a look at the manual for the editor and see that the cabinets and microphones are adjustable for each mode; do these changes apply only through the emulated out, or through the speaker out as well?

Cirrus

I get the impression that you'd pick speakers for it just like any other amp - it's not designed to model, say, an AC30 with blues or a JMP with G12h30s. It's modelling a certain kind of preamp, and a certain kind of power section, and you'd then go in to whatever guitar speakers float your boat.

That might be rubbish of course!

ICBM

It sounded great with a Marshall cab with G12T-75s and was able to do 'other' sounds (eg AC30) fairly convincingly through that. Unfortunately I didn't have the time to try it with a little 1x12" Eminence cab we have in the shop, which is almost the complete opposite tonally (middy and boxy as opposed to scooped and open).

polotska

Thanks Cirrus and ICBM.

Really looking forward to trying one myself (especially through G12Ms!), but as far as I can tell they’re not available from any brick-and-mortar retailer here in California as yet (and apparently are only carried by a single mail-order vendor in the USA at present).

dragonb4llz

Has anyone tried the xlr out in stereo? The specs say this under the IR section: "Channel: Mono / *Stereo (*Only usable either one channel)"

I'm looking to try this amp out for a home stereo silent recording setup and that'd need cab sim on both channels.

monquixote

I had some time in London earlier in the week and I nipped into the Yamaha shop to give the Revstar and the THR100 a bit of a going over. 

First the good 

It's certainly a nice pro looking piece of kit and was quite easy to dial in. I could get some great clean sounds out of it which reacted to the pickup combinations and controls as you would want.

The booster section worked really well. I was finding it really easy to get a sound and a slightly warmed up variant of the same out of the amp. 

The reverb sounded very natural and high quality. I'm pleased yamaha decided to throw a load of DSP at it as plenty of amps I've tried recently (Amp1 especially) had completely shit unusable reverb. 

The two sounds at the same time thing is cool, but not really of any interest to me as it just means there is more knobs to fiddle about with. I kept it on one amp for most of the time and I didn't really notice a choir of angels singing when I engaged both. That doesn't really concern me as I'd be looking at the single channel head and using it with pedals anyway if I got one.

Now the bad 

I couldn't really get any kind of drive sound I was especially happy with. Everything sounded fizzy and not overly inspiring regardless of what preamp, valve simulation or whatever. Don't know if I could have done better with more time to fiddle and with me I'm always focussing on the clean tones, but certainly the Blackstar ID range seems to win in this regard. 

It also didn't seem to have the dynamic kick you get from a valve amp (I guess like what @DrewFX was talking about) though to be fair I was using it through the standard compact cab not the oversized 2x12 I gig with. 

Outside of what I tried in the shop I'm slightly disappointed that you can't record via USB, or independently adjust the line out level. 

What I couldn't try 

How does it work with pedals?

Does it cut through the band mix?

How does the DI sound?

How loud is it?

Of course if @RossYamaha fancies lending me one I can give a full report

So overall a qualified positive if not a total home run. 

I will find the appropriate thread to talk about the Revstar, but in a nutshell they are awesome!

monquixote

monquixote said:

I had some time in London earlier in the week and I nipped into the Yamaha shop to give the Revstar and the THR100 a bit of a going over. 

First the good 

It's certainly a nice pro looking piece of kit and was quite easy to dial in. I could get some great clean sounds out of it which reacted to the pickup combinations and controls as you would want.

The booster section worked really well. I was finding it really easy to get a sound and a slightly warmed up variant of the same out of the amp. 

The reverb sounded very natural and high quality. I'm pleased yamaha decided to throw a load of DSP at it as plenty of amps I've tried recently (Amp1 especially) had completely shit unusable reverb. 

The two sounds at the same time thing is cool, but not really of any interest to me as it just means there is more knobs to fiddle about with. I kept it on one amp for most of the time and I didn't really notice a choir of angels singing when I engaged both. That doesn't really concern me as I'd be looking at the single channel head and using it with pedals anyway if I got one.

Now the bad 

I couldn't really get any kind of drive sound I was especially happy with. Everything sounded fizzy and not overly inspiring regardless of what preamp, valve simulation or whatever. Don't know if I could have done better with more time to fiddle and with me I'm always focussing on the clean tones, but certainly the Blackstar ID range seems to win in this regard. 

It also didn't seem to have the dynamic kick you get from a valve amp (I guess like what @DrewFX was talking about) though to be fair I was using it through the standard compact cab not the oversized 2x12 I gig with. 

Outside of what I tried in the shop I'm slightly disappointed that you can't record via USB, or independently adjust the line out level. 

What I couldn't try 

How does it work with pedals?

Does it cut through the band mix?

How does the DI sound?

How loud is it?

Of course if @RossYamaha fancies lending me one I can give a full report

So overall a qualified positive if not a total home run. 

I will find the appropriate thread to talk about the Revstar, but in a nutshell they are awesome!

I'm going to make a revision to this as I had another chance to look at this with @rossyamaha today and I have to say there are definitely some very good drive sounds to be found if you can dial it in. The KT88 setting seemed to be the trick to getting some dynamic goodness going on.

polotska

I realize I’m posting in a thread that’s several months old, but this seemed the most appropriate place to post this.

Finally had a chance to try a THR100HD—bought one used at a good price. I had high expectations for the amp based on positive comments and some excellent demos, but I must say I was quite disappointed. Clean sounds are fine, and in general the amp does a good job of feeling like a tube amp (though the “Class A” mode was too pronounced and felt like a caricature of cathode bias). But as @monquixote notes, the dirty sounds all have a very fatiguing, unnatural-sounding high frequency fizz that I can’t dial out. This is something I hear in most modelers (including the THR10), but I’d hoped that the THR100 wouldn’t suffer from it. As a result, I just couldn’t get distorted sounds that I was happy with at all. While I was quite happy with the clean sounds, they aren’t really what I bought the amp for. I’ve only tried it with a single cab so far—an open-back 1x12 with a G12M-25—but I am quite familiar with this cabinet and very happy with how it sounds with other amps.

I was also quite disappointed to find that it doesn’t especially excel at sounding good at low volumes—being a modeler, I had high hopes for the amp as a quiet practice solution, among other things, but it really needed to be turned up a bit louder than I would like to sound reasonably good.

On the plus side, I very much like the approach that Yamaha has taken—no presets and few built-in effects—as it forces the player to interact with it more like a traditional amp than like a rackmount effect or modeler. I think they also did a fine job of making all of the modes sound like variations on a theme with a bit of a signature “THR100” sound rather than offering a grab-bag assortment of widely disparate amps from different manufacturers, which turns me off a bit from typical modelers.

I’m a big fan of Yamaha, as a company—my favorite solidbody guitar is the SG1000, I quite like their old late-1970s/early-1980s solid state amps like the G100, and I love the vastly-underrated old E1005/E1010 analog delays—so I’m holding out hope for future versions of the THR.

ICBM

polotska said:

Finally had a chance to try a THR100HD—bought one used at a good price. I had high expectations for the amp based on positive comments and some excellent demos, but I must say I was quite disappointed. Clean sounds are fine, and in general the amp does a good job of feeling like a tube amp (though the “Class A” mode was too pronounced and felt like a caricature of cathode bias). But as @monquixote notes, the dirty sounds all have a very fatiguing, unnatural-sounding high frequency fizz that I can’t dial out. This is something I hear in most modelers (including the THR10), but I’d hoped that the THR100 wouldn’t suffer from it. As a result, I just couldn’t get distorted sounds that I was happy with at all. While I was quite happy with the clean sounds, they aren’t really what I bought the amp for. I’ve only tried it with a single cab so far—an open-back 1x12 with a G12M-25—but I am quite familiar with this cabinet and very happy with how it sounds with other amps.

That's interesting - I'm very familiar with that high-frequency 'fizz' (which I tend to call a 'crushed glass' sound since it has that sort of crunchy-grainy characteristic, to me) in digital amps, and I hate it - and I also hear it in the clips I've heard of the THR10, although I haven't played one in person. But the THR100 impressed me because I didn't hear it - I was running it through a Marshall 4x12" with G12T-75s, which are quite a bright/fizzy speaker and I would have thought would bring it out if anything.

I know what you mean about the 'Class A' mode being overdone - that's a problem I fond with the Blackstar ID as well, it's probably because in reality the effects of different power valves and power stage types aren't quite as pronounced in reality as most people think they are, so they overdo it a bit to make it more obvious.

I'd still like to try one properly with my own speakers though. I was going to make you an offer for it until I saw where you are .

polotska

ICBM said:

That's interesting - I'm very familiar with that high-frequency 'fizz' (which I tend to call a 'crushed glass' sound since it has that sort of crunchy-grainy characteristic, to me) in digital amps, and I hate it - and I also hear it in the clips I've heard of the THR10, although I haven't played one in person. But the THR100 impressed me because I didn't hear it - I was running it through a Marshall 4x12" with G12T-75s, which are quite a bright/fizzy speaker and I would have thought would bring it out if anything.

Yes, I remember your comment about not hearing that “fizz” when you tried one—that was partly what pushed me over the edge to buy one! All kidding aside, I’m quite glad I did; there are things that I like about the amp.

I’m ever-hopeful that I’ll find a two-channel amp that does what I’m looking for. The THR100HD seemed like it could come close, but alas!

ICBM

To be honest, this sort of thing is why I've held back from buying a new one - I like to keep my prospects of getting my money back as high as possible if I discover some deal-breaking problem further along the line. (Being an adopted Scotsman and all that .)

The speakers may be important - I nearly bought a Blackstar HT-1R recently after first trying it through the V30s in my Mesa combo, which sounded great. Unfortunately through its own cab which I didn't have at first, it had a top-end fizz I couldn't dial out - but carrying a 100W 2x12" combo just to use as the speakers for a 1W head seemed a little counterproductive . I should maybe look for a lightweight V30 cab...

Sporky

ICBM said:

But I do know that it's physically impossible for an amp to put out more power than it uses

Long term it is, but music isn't full power all the time (I have %age tables somewhere), so you can have a music output that exceeds the constant input. I know everyone insists that RMS is the only true power measurement, but for an audio application it's not that useful.

Basically you have a set of capacitors to store energy, which is then available to enable the amp's output power to exceed its steady input power. If you get it right you can have an amp that genuinely outputs more power when fed music than it takes in - it works with music, not with pink noise.

I don't now if that's how Yamaha have done it but their claim is plausible for a reasonable input signal. There are serious installation amps that do this. I don't think there's anything dishonest about it - both the input and output power are published.

monquixote

The sporky

He speaks truth.

Sporky

Here's an example on the installation side - Lab Gruppen FP10000Q - http://labgruppen.com/view-model/fpseries/fp-10000q?page=overview

Input power - under 3680W (that's the limit on the power connector)
Output power - 10kW

I would suggest that Lab are a well respected brand and that when they say it'll deliver 10,000W for music they're not fibbing.

thomasross20

Same as PAR in comms, no? Our drivers we design takes big spikes so transiently the output can exceed the input but on it averages out over time else we'd have free energy.

ICBM

Sporky said:

ICBM said:

But I do know that it's physically impossible for an amp to put out more power than it uses

Long term it is, but music isn't full power all the time (I have %age tables somewhere), so you can have a music output that exceeds the constant input. I know everyone insists that RMS is the only true power measurement, but for an audio application it's not that useful.

Basically you have a set of capacitors to store energy, which is then available to enable the amp's output power to exceed its steady input power. If you get it right you can have an amp that genuinely outputs more power when fed music than it takes in - it works with music, not with pink noise.

I don't now if that's how Yamaha have done it but their claim is plausible for a reasonable input signal. There are serious installation amps that do this. I don't think there's anything dishonest about it - both the input and output power are published.

It depends what you mean by 'audio application'. There's a big difference between 'music programme' - ie mixed, multi-instrument, full-range recorded or live music - where that can be the best measurement - and a musical instrument amp, especially one that's intended to produce a distorted sound where the continuous power can be very close to the maximum power.

I can accept that the effective music power output of a power amp designed for PA can exceed the power draw (for the same reasons as it's correct to use higher-rated amps than speakers, for PA), but for a guitar amp to claim more output power than input power is dishonest. It also means that comparing a "100W" amp measured like that to a *true* 100W amp that will put out 100W continuous clean power - and up to double it distorted, or several times that in 'music power' - is going to reflect very badly on the 'music power rated' amp.

Put a THR100 up against a Marshall 2203 or a Hiwatt DR103 and see if you still think 'music programme' is a valid way to rate guitar amp power .

What's disappointing about this one is that with SMPS and Class D it would be a piece of cake to make it a true 100W output, at very little extra cost.

Sporky

The power density of even heavily distorted guitar is significantly lower than pink noise.

In engineering terms it is trivial to build a power amp that can output - for long periods of time - more than its continuous input. You just up the power storage capacity to match the requirement.

I've explained how to do it, and given you an example of a power amp that exceeds its input power by a factor of three at the top end of the industry where fibs aren't tolerated. I can give you a dozen more examples if you like - all respected brands, all operating in applications where "dishonesty" isn't tolerated and the companies that use them put them through serious torture testing before taking them into their fleets.

Not sure what there is to dispute. It is a well established and thoroughly proven approach.