Yamaha THR100

ICBM

I can get continuous measured power outputs of *well* over 100W from any proper 100W-rated amp when playing a guitar through them - not testing with a signal generator - so with respect, I don't think your figures are correct as applied to real-world guitar amplifiers. (Those amps are drawing anywhere up to 300-400W while doing that.)

Pro-audio dealing with a mixed music programme signal is a *completely* different situation. I fully understand that can give effective power outputs greater than the input power. There's a world of difference between 'proper' audio engineering - hi-fi, PA, studio amps etc - and what goes on with guitar amps. It's exactly the same reason as why you can use amps of up to four times the rated power of the speakers in pro audio if you're careful, but with guitar you will very quickly destroy them if you try that.

Put a cranked Marshall 2203 up against any claimed 100W 'music power' amp and then tell me if you think that's a valid way to rate a guitar amp. It isn't. What you've posted illustrates perfectly why despite their designer's claims, no modern technology amp even comes close to the volume of a fifty-year-old technology guitar amp of the same on-paper power rating.

And it's still physically impossible for an amp to put out more power than it consumes. The only way it can appear to is for the *average* output to be less than the consumption. I'm sure you're scientifically educated enough to know that.


(Edit: actually there is one - the Blackstar ID series. But in fact, these amps actually produce much *more* power output than they're claimed to have… and draw the correct equivalent for that, eg the '60W' model draws 150W, which is why it's capable of nearly the same volume as a 60W valve amp.)

Sporky

ICBM said:

Put a cranked Marshall 2203 up against any claimed 100W 'music power' amp and then tell me if you think that's a valid way to rate a guitar amp. It isn't. What you've posted illustrates perfectly why despite their designer's claims, no modern technology amp even comes close to the volume of a fifty-year-old technology guitar amp of the same on-paper power rating.

The Marshall is a valve amp; cranked it exceeds its rated power output because of the vagaries of valve amp power ratings, not because valves are made of magic. Actually, as you know, do the same with a solid state amp, push it into square wave distortion and you can similarly exceed the rated power, because that is typically measured with 6dB power crest pink noise or 1kHz sine at a stated THD; up the THD and you up the power density. Smoke and mirrors.

You know this, so you also know it's an irrelevant comparison against a Class D system, which is such a different approach, with such different operating parameters that considering it a "class" of amp is a bit silly. Class D is permanently in square wave saturation.

ICBM said:

And it's still physically impossible for an amp to put out more power than it consumes. The only way it can appear to is for the *average* output to be less than the consumption. I'm sure you're scientifically educated enough to know that.

That's what I said - didn't you read my post before replying? What matters is making the averaging window long enough that it makes no practical, audible or measurable difference, which is a trivial engineering task.

I said that. I explained how it works. I gave you an example of an amp that does it, by a company that doesn't do "dishonesty", and you're still disputing it, only now you're implying I don't understand the very point I made and using comparisons you know are skewed vs the amp we were originally talking about

I'm out.

ICBM

Sporky said:

ICBM said:

And it's still physically impossible for an amp to put out more power than it consumes. The only way it can appear to is for the *average* output to be less than the consumption. I'm sure you're scientifically educated enough to know that.

That's what I said - didn't you read my post before replying? What matters is making the averaging window long enough that it makes no practical, audible or measurable difference, which is a trivial engineering task.

About five minutes?

If I play a chord rhythm guitar part I can keep the continuous output of an amp in power-stage distortion for the length of a song if I want to.

This is not smoke and mirrors, it's real-world operating conditions for some musicians, and it's no wonder that modern amps just don't cut it for them when the designers just don't seem to understand that it's not at all the same as for a music programme signal. Blackstar seem to be the only ones who get it. (The ID series is also Class D, by the way.)

If you want modern amps to be taken seriously you have to stop bullshitting about the output power, to put it bluntly.

fields5069

fields5069

Just thought I'd resurrect this thread for a bit. I recently got a THR100 off this forum, and now I'm comparing and contrasting between it and my Blues Cube Artist, albeit using the Artist's power section for the Yamaha. I think the Yamaha suits me better, but I did notice the Yamaha's high-end fizz which was off-putting to say the least. On Crunch, I need to set the treble to about 10 o'clock with my Tele, and it does seem to have tamed it pretty much.

So I've been AB-ing both amps, to see if I can get the Yamaha close to the Roland and vice versa, essentially to decide which to let go. Again this is through the Roland's power section and speaker, so not ideal I guess. Obviously the Yamaha covers more ground, but as I would rarely use Lead or Modern it is more of an even match than you might think.

I'm still deciding, but if nothing else this has made me tweak the Roland more in 2 days than I have since I got it, and I discovered that I really prefer the Tone buttons engaged and also that it's not necessary, or sometimes ideal, to max the volume on either channel.

Interesting!

fields5069

It turns out I may be making some kind of grave error. Through the Blues Cube, the Clean model is a bit polite and not very bass-heavy. Through headphones there seems to be more gain - could this be due to the IR in use? I'll try through the hifi again tonight if I get time. I'm basically trying to decide whether to keep it and sell the Blues Cube, and the Blues Cube is definitely winning with the way I have the THR set up at the moment.

dpm

can you record with the thr100 amp's direct out xlr, straight into a computer interface? does it have speaker emulation on the signal? or is it really harsh sounding and fizzy?

57Deluxe

a mature-ish student has gotten the 5w model and it urks that pants off me. He insists on selecting ALL the Chorus and Distortion  all the time! I keep redialling it back clean and uncluttered but he sneaks it back up. Makes lessons rather tiring. As a consequence I HATE THESE AMPS!

ICBM

57Deluxe said:

a mature-ish student has gotten the 5w model and it urks that pants off me. He insists on selecting ALL the Chorus and Distortion  all the time! I keep redialling it back clean and uncluttered but he sneaks it back up. Makes lessons rather tiring. As a consequence I HATE THESE AMPS!

The THR10 and presumably the 5 (I haven't actually played one) sound nothing like the THR100 at all. I don't know if it's down to the processing in the amp section, or the type of cab/speakers, but I couldn't get a dirty sound I liked out of the THR10, although I did like the clean and to some extent the just-breaking-up sound.

The THR100 is probably the best-sounding new amp I've tried though, both clean and dirty.