New Fender Super Champ X2 Announced

rickshapiro · #1 01-18-2012, 07:56 AM

Fender Products

New for Namm, looks interesting, they also have a head version.

Help!I'maRock! · #2 01-18-2012, 08:11 AM

i just can't get behind these digital amps. they seem like just another transition on the way to iPad -> powered speaker.

rickshapiro · #3 01-18-2012, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Help!I'maRock!

i just can't get behind these digital amps. they seem like just another transition on the way to iPad -> powered speaker.

This is more of a hybrid.
Preamp Tubes: 1 x 12AX7
Power Tubes: 2 x 6V6

Help!I'maRock! · #4 01-18-2012, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickshapiro

This is more of a hybrid.
Preamp Tubes: 1 x 12AX7
Power Tubes: 2 x 6V6

so it's the worst of both worlds. a cheapo tube amp with underpowered DSP. i'm thoroughly convinced the better solutions are either a Princeton Reverb, a used solid state Peavey combo, or something like Amp Farm with a powered speaker.

rickshapiro · #5 01-18-2012, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Help!I'maRock!

so it's the worst of both worlds. a cheapo tube amp with underpowered DSP. i'm thoroughly convinced the better solutions are either a Princeton Reverb, a used solid state Peavey combo, or something like Amp Farm with a powered speaker.

I would think this is very similar to an Amp Farm with a powered speaker.

FrankLearns · #6 01-18-2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Help!I'maRock!

so it's the worst of both worlds. a cheapo tube amp with underpowered DSP. i'm thoroughly convinced the better solutions are either a Princeton Reverb, a used solid state Peavey combo, or something like Amp Farm with a powered speaker.

These amps will likely sound similar to the SuperChamp XD, an amp that *is* being liked for its sound and lightweight by many members of this forum (as well as many musicians in other styles). I am with you that a Princeton is probably a higher quality, arguably better sounding amp - but subject to the laws of diminishing returns at 6-8 times the price.

BigDaddyLoveHandles · #7 01-18-2012, 10:31 AM

Sounds like a tubey version of their new Mustang lines, which gets a lot of love, apart from its "fizzz" problem. It would be interesting to A/B it against a Mustang II, say.

mambosun · #8 01-18-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankLearns

These amps will likely sound similar to the SuperChamp XD, an amp that *is* being liked for its sound and lightweight by many members of this forum (as well as many musicians in other styles). I am with you that a Princeton is probably a higher quality, arguably better sounding amp - but subject to the laws of diminishing returns at 6-8 times the price.

I fully agree, Princeton here is at least X3 times more expensive than the SXCD (or now X2), would it be X3 times better too?
I'm a big fan of the vintage SF Princeton (not much more expensive than the reissue model) but many forumers not fully satisfied with the stock jensen of the PRI swaped it for a Weber and the likes...which is a bit hard to swallow.

FrankLearns · #9 01-18-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Sounds like a tubey version of their new Mustang lines, which gets a lot of love, apart from its "fizzz" problem. It would be interesting to A/B it against a Mustang II, say.

I happen to own a SuperChamp XD and a Mustang IV (obviously not a great comparison as they differ so much). Both sound very good to me. The XD is a bit more "tuby". It is just too weak for playing with a (rock) band. That was the reason to get the M4 (which is almost overkill for that purpose). For home playing i really like the XD. I agree that the A/B of the M2 and the X2 would be very interesting as both are nice alternative options at the low price point.

Insufferable_Rhythm · #10 01-18-2012, 10:55 AM

If anything like the XD, the back-end is the same as found in a Princeton Reverb. Within the assumption that most jazz guitarists would use the amplifier for relatively clean tones, the processing isn't "underpowered" at all. Powerful processing is an asset when attempting to recreate complex behaviours. There isn't much (harmonic) complexity to a blackface/silverface Fender pre-amplifier which, unless hammered with a large signal, is basically never pushed out of its linear region. All the significantly "tubey" aspects of a blackface/silverface Fender amplifier are produced in its phase inverter and output stage -- the exact parts that don't need to be recreated through DSP in the modern Super Champ series.

If planning on using the more distortion oriented voicings, this is moot.

rickshapiro · #11 01-18-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insufferable_Rhythm

If anything like the XD, the back-end is the same as found in a Princeton Reverb. Within the assumption that most jazz guitarists would use the amplifier for relatively clean tones, the processing isn't "underpowered" at all. Powerful processing is an asset when attempting to recreate complex behaviours. There isn't much (harmonic) complexity to a blackface/silverface Fender pre-amplifier which, unless hammered with a large signal, is basically never pushed out of its linear region. All the significantly "tubey" aspects of a blackface/silverface Fender amplifier are produced in its phase inverter and output stage -- the exact parts that don't need to be recreated through DSP in the modern Super Champ series.

If the X2 has an emulated output I am wondering whether I can drive the modeling into my Tech 21 Power Engine if I need more volume.

jbear · #12 01-18-2012, 11:15 AM

I use the A channel with a Barber SF or a TS9 and it's pretty sweet.
I did put an Eminence Delta Demon in there and that helped out. Cost me $30. I think it would be even nicer in the 1x12 box that you can get for it. I don't use the B channel...sometimes I'll mess around with #6 or #8...they're not bad.
It's a cool alternative if I don't want to haul a DRRI, HRD or t50c around.

Double 07 · #13 01-18-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insufferable_Rhythm

All the significantly "tubey" aspects of a blackface/silverface Fender amplifier are produced in its phase inverter and output stage -- .

The first gain stage (tube) in a fender, and most other tube amps, has a lot to do with the overall tone of the amp. Every other tube after that is only going to amplify the tone that preamp tube puts out.

As far as shaping the tube tone of an all tube amp:

1st - the power tubes
2nd - (and a close second) the 1st preamp tube
3rd - the second preamp tube (only for drive channel it has no effect on the clean channel)
4th - the phase inverter tube

Insufferable_Rhythm · #14 01-18-2012, 01:37 PM

Which aspect(s) of the tube input stage operating in its linear region, per se, do you consider to have a significant affect on the overarching tone of the amplifier?

What condition(s) makes the second stage, a mere copy of the first, subordinate in its contribution to the first?

Considering that perceptible distortion (harmonic generation) is unlikely in the pre-amplifier (for "our" purpose) but much more likely in the phase inverter, how does the latter become subordinate to the former in the manufacture of distinct tube quality?

And first is the complexity formed by the interaction of the power tubes, output transformer and speaker.

Insufferable_Rhythm · #15 01-18-2012, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double 07

The first gain stage (tube) in a fender, and most other tube amps, has a lot to do with the overall tone of the amp. Every other tube after that is only going to amplify the tone that preamp tube puts out.

Indulging this idea, it is much more accurate to say that each successive tube will only amplify the tone that the tonestack produces, as it is situated between the input stage and every other tube.

What magic property does the input tube possess that it does not simply amplify the tone that the guitar produces, when every other tube is so slavish?

Double 07 · #16 01-18-2012, 02:46 PM

No, you're misinterpreting what I said. I said the LAST tubes in the signal chain (the power amp tubes) have the most impact on the tone. However closely after that the preamp tube has the next greatest impact on the tone. Try putting one of the el cheapo Chinese tubes in there or a used up tube and see how good or not so good your amp sounds. Whether it's "linear" or not I'm not talking about specs here I'm talking about tone. It's a tube amp so the tubes do the amplifying and therefore the tubes do have a significant impact on the tone of the amp (including the preamp tube). That preamp tube does the amplifying for the preamp so it shapes the tonal characteristics of the preamp to a significant degree.

The phase inverter tube's job is not so much to amplify but to invert half of the signal before the output stage so that the output tubes can work in a push-pull configuration. So the phase inverter tube has the least amount of effect on the tone though it does have some, after all the signal does go through it.

Insufferable_Rhythm · #17 01-18-2012, 03:41 PM

I didn't misinterpret it, you made conflicting statements.

Anyway, it's no wonder that a "used up" tube sounds bad, it no longer meets its specification and does not operate properly. Similarly, it is often the case that cheap tubes are not the type they purport to be but some other type that is "close enough" and so never meet the specification. "Tone" isn't some free roaming entity that jumps into your amplifier if it smells a particularly juicy tube cooking, it is the result of specifications and "linear or not" and more -- it is the result of engineering, explainable by science. There are reasons behind the way things sound.

By what mechanism(s) does the input tube, per se, shape the tonal characteristic to a significant degree in this instance. Support your claim.

And by significant degree I mean to a discernible degree. Sure, there are absolute differences, but our tools for measurement (our ears) do not perceive absolutely.

Finally, there is not such an easy and direct correlation between a phase inverter's affect on tone and its amplification factor.

Double 07 · #18 01-18-2012, 04:13 PM

Anyway I've tested enough cheap tubes to know they are indeed the kind of tube they claim to be just not well made. Anyway have a nice day.

Doctor Jeff · #19 01-18-2012, 09:15 PM

I love the Super Champ XD. The clean channel is a nice, typically warm Fender sound. I don't have a lot of use for the modeled channels, but the Jazzmaster provides a dark contrast to the clean sound. With a little tweaking, the Acoustasonic model does a good job of bringing out the acoustic qualities of my archtop.

The digital effects are quite good, but I primarily just use a touch of hall reverb.

I think for an amateur like me who mainly plays at home it is perfect. I wish I had bought it years ago. I don't know if the extras justify the extra price of the X2, but for the price the SCXD can't be beat.

rickshapiro · #20 01-26-2012, 10:33 AM

I was in Sam Ash and play through the mustangs and thought they were nice, really liked the Mustang III but am going to stay away from them given the fizz reports. I am really considering The Champ X2 for a nice rehearsal amp. I a thinking about the separate head and cab. Tube and the modeling and the fuse software for the X2 seem like a good deal.

I just hope the clean channel is clean? Does the X2 stay clean.