ZT Comparison(serial # 1xxx and serial # 4xxx)
HP
A guy at the internet had the opportunity to spend some time with two
different SERIAL NUMBERS ZT Lunchboxes (serial # 1xxx and serial #
4xxx). He try to describe the differences in the two amps.
Appearance
1xxx LB - "Reverb" knob, Chinese characters, light grey handle
4xxx LB - "Ambiance" knob, no Chinese characters, darker grey handle
Personally I kind of liked the presence of the Chinese characters but
for no particular reason.
Visually the new LB appears to be slightly larger than the older one
but the difference appears to be all in perception because when
physically compared they are identical.
Reverb/Ambiance
I did not perceive any difference between the 1xxx LB and 4xxx LB in
terms of this effect. Either way it adds a subtle colour to the sound.
My personal preference is to have this dial set to somewhere between
11 o'clock and noon. At this setting there appears to be a little bit
of extra presence added to the sound.
Volume and Gain
The 1xxx LB has more gain and volume available than the 4xxx LB. For
comparison, with gain at noon on both amps I have to turn the volume
of the 4xxx LB up to 2 o'clock to get the same volume as the 1xxx LB
would be at 12 o'clock. I know that is not at all scientific but trust
me there is a difference.
Similarly there appears to be less gain available. The LB is hardly a
high gain amp to begin with. Some people may not like the idea of less
gain but my bet is that most LB users are using pedals for dirt. On
the 4xxx LB the gain adds some warmth to the tone that was not
apparent in the same way on the 1xxx LB.
On the other hand the 4xxx LB is still plenty loud. I don't doubt that
it would still hold its own in a band context.
Tone
Overall the 4xxx LB has a warmer sound which suits me fine. The 1xxx
LB can sound a little brittle and thin as the tone knob is turned up.
The 4xxx LB can still be quite bright sounding but it also has a bit
more umphf in the bass.
I would characterize the tone as being more usable on the 4xxx LB.
Hiss
There is a dramatic difference between the amount of hiss that comes
from the 1xxx LB vs the 4xxx LB. I can turn up the volume and gain all
the way on the 4xxx and only hear a small amount of hiss. On the 1xxx
LB hiss was quite audible at any reasonable playing volume and gets
much worse as the volume and gain are increased. In fact this was my
only beef about the 1xxx LB. On a recording of a performance I had a
few months ago the hiss was quite noticeable from approximately 15
feet back when we stopped playing. I'd imagine that in a close-mic
situation the hiss would be a showstopper. On the 4xxx LB I don't
believe that would be a concern.
Heat
There has been much discussion about the Lunchbox overheating based on
a few bad experiences. Personally, having had the 1xxx LB for almost a
year I can say that it does get warm but never hot to the touch.
During the comparison I ran both amps for a few hours. All I can say
is that ZT seems to have solved their heat issues. After running the
4xxx LB for over an hour straight it was still cool to touch.
rpjazzguitar
6xxx. Labeled "ambience" and no chinese characters. Where is that in
comparison to the ones you mentioned?
There is noticeable hiss.
The ambience control is the result of an engineering problem. The
designer posted to the effect that they wanted it to be true reverb,
but the chip didn't have enough capacity for a true reverb program. I
assume that they programmed what little they could. The first version
was labeled for reverb (they were optimistic, apparently). Then, they
changed it, since it wasn't reverb. They then said it simulated an
open vs closed back cabinet. Somebody in marketing must have gotten a
bonus for that idea.
I find the ambience control to be useless.
Carl
Lunchbox Acoustic? I have read elsewhere that the LB Acoustic has a less
brittle sound than the standard LB, and I do recall that one of them had an
"ambience" control.
In any case, the most current (April) Guitar Player Magazine reviews the
Lunchbox Acoustic, and does review it favorably. However, I noticed that it
did not get an "Editor's Pick" award. A couple of months ago, I sort of
arbitrarily decided on the Fishman Loudbox Mini over the LB Acoustic, not
having the opportunity to try either out. It had gotten an excellent review
in GP Mag and an Editor's Pick award as a result of the review.
I guess now I'm glad that I made the choice I made! :-)
Docbop
I had the LB Acoustic and returned it. The LB Acoustic has two
channels and reverb control. The sound was good, but it doesn't get
near the volume of the regular LB, it also ran very hot. I had two
fail on me and the volume issue I just said forget it and got my money
back. I have to say thought ZT Customer Service was very good dealing
with the bad amps and return, so I would do business with them again.
jjtko75
I have a brand new Lunchbox (not the acoustic), so I'm guessing it's
the 4xxx. It's the regular one with the 6.5" speaker. Right out of
the box, I liked the tone of it, and I was surprised how loud it was
in my apartment.
I got it last Thursday just in time to take it to sit in on my
friend's gig in Manhattan. The instrumentation was trumpet, tenor,
keys and miked upright. No drums. Played straight ahead jazz. I used a
strat that night.
I got a nice fat tone with plenty of volume. I'd say the maximum
volume of the Lunchbox is about the same as an un-amplified tenor
saxophone played at a moderately loud level. A sax player friend of
mine in the audience was amazed that something that small could sound
so good and be that loud.
It has a nice smooth roll-off in the bass which is nice. I'd probably
want a little more bass for playing solo, but with a bass player it
was fine. Better than fine actually.
One way I judge an amp is how often I reach back to fiddle with the
knobs, and I never touched them on the Lunchbox once I started
playing. I had the tone at 12 o'clock, the volume and gain at about
90%. I didn't like anything about the ambience control, so I left that
off. The room we were in had a high ceiling so no reverb was needed
anyway.
For sure, it's not a better sound than my Vibrolux, but for what it
is, it's great.
John
Carl
I do wonder why the LB Acoustic would not generate the same volume as the
LB? They have the same rated output and the same speaker.
I will always wonder, though, how something so small can be made to produce
200W RMS power in the first place. I would think it would get immensely hot.
I mean, there's nothing there to heatsink the power-producing components, so
I just don't get how they do it at all.
sheetsofsound
>
> I will always wonder, though, how something so small can be made to produce
> 200W RMS power in the first place. I would think it would get immensely hot.
> I mean, there's nothing there to heatsink the power-producing components, so
> I just don't get how they do it at all.
wattage doesn't necessarily equate to sound pressure. My guess is that
the LB is equivalent to about a 35 watt SS amp. If you want small and
loud, look at the GK MB-200 amp. It's 20x louder than the lunchbox and
weighs 2lbs.
Docbop
My gut feeling is the pre-amp is not as hot for cleaner sound and to
handle some of the acoustic pickups that can be high output.
Carl
speaker area (ie. size of speaker) and speaker efficiency. A 12" speaker
pushes around 100 sq inches of air. A 6" speaker can only push about 30 sq
in. And this doesn't even consider the efficiency of the speaker.
However, that still doesn't address the rated power output issue. I don't
know offhand the rated efficiency of the average amp (I'd bet it's not more
than 50%), but to produce 200W RMS of output power, I do know it has to draw
significantly more than 200W of power, because no machine operates at 100%
eficiency.
Let's say it draws only 250W for argument's sake. Somewhere, 50W (or more)
of wasted energy has to be dissipated. It's the reason why older-fashioned
output transistors had huge heatsinks, and why output tubes and output
transformers get so hot.
Someone said that the LB Acoustic gets very hot. I'm not surprised. I just
don't get how it handles that much power dissipation at all, particularly
since the box is not metal.
sheetsofsound
my guess is that the 200w is measured at 10% THD which is
unfortunately common with rock oriented guitar amps.
Carl
high-fidelity, pure-sound producing amps as you might find with a high end
stereo system which have <1% THD. They are still RMS watts, not some hyped
up "Music Power" or inflated "Peak Power" rating (see
http://www.bcae1.com/speakrat.htm for a reasonable explanation of the
differences).
It's still producing 200W of continuous power and still needs to dissipate
its losses in heat. How it accomplishes this is what I'm failing to
understand.
How about all those "acoustic" amps out there that purport to reproduce your
guitar sound with near-absolute clarity and accuracy. They must have very
low THD?
sheetsofsound
> differences).
>
> It's still producing 200W of continuous power and still needs to dissipate
> its losses in heat. How it accomplishes this is what I'm failing to
> understand.
>
> How about all those "acoustic" amps out there that purport to reproduce your
> guitar sound with near-absolute clarity and accuracy. They must have very
> low THD?
carl, there are "rated" stats and measured ones. until someone
measures and confirms that the lunchbox dissipates 200 watts, I don't
believe it. In fact, I'd like to know what speaker they are using
which can handle 200w? Any of the 6" speakers I've seen can only
handle 100w continuous. Is it possible that the lunchbox doesn't
really dissipate 200w rms continuous? That's my suspicion. It's not
like their is a guitar amplifier governing body that verifies these
things...
Carl
I would ideally hope that a known manufacturer, which has a reputation to
protect, would provide accurate measurements, since there are people out
there who can check them. But there I go being naive again.
Thanks for the input though. It makes sense.