is blackstar done ?

pintspiller

Danny1969 said:

To be honest I'm bored of the sound but you do get bored of every amp after a while

Some get bored with gear quicker than others. Hence GAS.

Alnico

pintspiller said:

Danny1969 said:

To be honest I'm bored of the sound but you do get bored of every amp after a while

Some get bored with gear quicker than others. Hence GAS.

One of the reasons I bought the 200 is that there's so much variation between the 4 channels that it was my hope I would never get bored of the amp overall.
It's certainly not tainted with the same character between the channels, they're very different and then adjust them and they're different again.
Like I said earlier in the thread, varying the balance between the channel and master volume vs the power control massively changes the sound and that's even staying on just one channel so between all 4 there's a lot of variations to play with and find new sounds.
I also love the KT88 valves although I'm big enough to admit I don't know what impact they have on the actual sound, I just like the fact that in my head it makes the amp sound big. I don't know a great deal about amps or electronics but I know when I like the sound of a good amp and this is one to me.
Yes I like loud amps but the 200w aspect of it wasn't the only reason I bought it.
Plus with MIDI as well my multi FX can control the channel changes and in 4cm that just adds even more dimension and depth to it.

It's the best £500 I've spent in years, possibly ever.
I've got nothing but respect for Blackstar.

jeztone2

I think they are the new Marshall. It's all reasonably well made stuff for the mass market. I have an Artisan 30 & aside from its weight it's a great amp. I tried a series one & it struck me as a sorted JCM2000 range. 

They also seem to be looking at what people want, rather than what they've chosen to put out.
Marshall have ignored the influence of the MK1 Guv'nor & compact multifunction amp heads. Surrendering Market share to JHS and H&K .

Strat54

darcym said:

they started off making mid/higher end amps, went through a list of endorsers now seem to push the cheap usb amps, and I've not really heard anything of them since ?

I know they are still trading, website etc etc, but are they actually "done" ? they don't seem to have any market or any real product development any more

Just taken a look at their group accounts.....not great, I have to say. They lost £600k last year, hopefully their investors will keep the faith.

timmysoft

I've tried pretty much all their amps and hated them all! I've had to work with a few of them before when i was out tech'ing and apart from the artisans, everything else developed faults or died within a few tours. I've never heard someone using a backstair and thought "wow, what a great tone", for me they are sonic beige, the wallpaper of modern amps. 

Fretwired

Strat54 said:

Just taken a look at their group accounts.....not great, I have to say. They lost £600k last year, hopefully their investors will keep the faith.

Any reason given? A one-off write off perhaps.

Ravenous

Fretwired said:

Strat54 said:

Just taken a look at their group accounts.....not great, I have to say. They lost £600k last year, hopefully their investors will keep the faith.

Any reason given? A one-off write off perhaps.

PDF downloadable here (Oct 2016 is the latest accounts):

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07966184/filing-history

Seems to be showing losses of over 604K for 2016, and over 785K for 2015.

However someone with a feel for these things should read through the rest to get a better picture of the assets, how expenses are accounted for, etc. (The have a huge loss taken from the Gross Profit for "Administrative expenses" for example, I have no idea what that would be.)

GrahamG

 Hey,Danny 1969 "a few bands of 60 year olds gigging cheese from the 70's in pubs" ,
What's up with that?

professorben

GrahamG said:

 Hey,Danny 1969 "a few bands of 60 year olds gigging cheese from the 70's in pubs" ,
What's up with that?

Some sniff at non true bypass
some sniff at non valve
some sniff at midi
some sniff at covers 

can you imagine how boring this forum would be if we all agreed? 

Danny1969

GrahamG said:

 Hey,Danny 1969 "a few bands of 60 year olds gigging cheese from the 70's in pubs" ,
What's up with that?

Nothing, One of those is mine. Just saying the Blackstar brand can be found as the backline in all kinds of bands these days 

GoldenEraGuitars

I owned a few blackstar HT hybrid thingies in between acquiring other amps. More like a stop gap amp. Awful cleans and the gain after 9 o clock was just linear even if maxed out.

The only 2 times I've seen BS amps on stage was Steve Craddock and the band that supported BSC in 2016. Other than that I've not heard their higher end amps.

As far as their practice amps go I'd be hard pushed to buy another one. Their HT range is a hybrid, is it not? One pre amp valve and a transistor power section? They're not full valve and in that case I'd prefer the THR. Having said that... I'll take a Marshall any day of the week

olafgarten

lonestar said:

I owned a few blackstar HT hybrid thingies in between acquiring other amps. More like a stop gap amp. Awful cleans and the gain after 9 o clock was just linear even if maxed out.

The only 2 times I've seen BS amps on stage was Steve Craddock and the band that supported BSC in 2016. Other than that I've not heard their higher end amps.

As far as their practice amps go I'd be hard pushed to buy another one. Their HT range is a hybrid, is it not? One pre amp valve and a transistor power section? They're not full valve and in that case I'd prefer the THR. Having said that... I'll take a Marshall any day of the week

Not really, they are almost full valve in both the pre and power amp but in the preamp there are some Solid State gain stages. 

ICBM

olafgarten said:

Not really, they are almost full valve in both the pre and power amp but in the preamp there are some Solid State gain stages. 

No they aren't.

The stages which are valve are the ones that give a valve amp most of its 'valve' character, but the bulk of the signal path is solid state - it's closer to a solid-state amp with valve stages than a valve amp with solid-state stages. That's not a judgement on the sounds quality or anything, simply what it is from a circuit topology point of view.

Taking the HT-5 for example:

IC stage 1 > IC  stage 2 > valve stage 1 > valve stage 2 > IC stage 3 > IC stage 4 > IC stage 5 > IC stage 6 > phase inverter (discrete transistor) > output valves

7 solid-state stages vs 3 valve ones.

Most of the distortion occurs in valve stage 2, and the dynamic control of the speaker is from the valve output stage.

Danny1969

  The important part is all valve,   That's the power amplifier section... The  output transformer et cetera .  These are the parts that give a valve amplifier its character. 
 The other much cheaper way of building a hybrid amp is to use a valve preamplifier and a solid-state power amplifier ....   This is what Marshall do in the valvestate series ....  It's much cheaper to do as there are no expensive power valves no expensive output transformer . 

 I kind of see the Blackstar HT series as being a  clean boost pedal in a valve amp which to be fair is what many many people do ...  Stick a clean boost in front of a valve amp 

darthed1981

Ravenous said:

Fretwired said:

Strat54 said:

Just taken a look at their group accounts.....not great, I have to say. They lost £600k last year, hopefully their investors will keep the faith.

Any reason given? A one-off write off perhaps.

PDF downloadable here (Oct 2016 is the latest accounts):

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07966184/filing-history

Seems to be showing losses of over 604K for 2016, and over 785K for 2015.

However someone with a feel for these things should read through the rest to get a better picture of the assets, how expenses are accounted for, etc. (The have a huge loss taken from the Gross Profit for "Administrative expenses" for example, I have no idea what that would be.)

Salaries not included in cost of sales I suspect.

Overall Blackstar makes money, just about,  on some level, according to the sheet.  They are paying off investors goodwill and paying a lot of directors and salaries.  I'm no accountant but it looks like a decent enough balance sheet as long as they have a plan to turn the loss positive over the next few years.

With the overall loss though you can understand the focus on the volume products, they are not going to overturn a 600k loss selling 50 boutique amps a year, they might selling 50,000 Core amps!

ICBM

Danny1969 said:

  The important part is all valve,   That's the power amplifier section... The  output transformer et cetera .  These are the parts that give a valve amplifier its character. 
 The other much cheaper way of building a hybrid amp is to use a valve preamplifier and a solid-state power amplifier ....   This is what Marshall do in the valvestate series ....  It's much cheaper to do as there are no expensive power valves no expensive output transformer . 

 I kind of see the Blackstar HT series as being a  clean boost pedal in a valve amp which to be fair is what many many people do ...  Stick a clean boost in front of a valve amp

The problem I have with the Blackstars is entirely to do with them being marketed as 'all valve', which they were originally - they are most certainly not, by any definition. I'm not even completely convinced they count as 'valve', but I would give the benefit of the doubt since they do at least contain more than one .

(For what it's worth I wouldn't describe the power amplifier section as all-valve either since the phase inverter is solid state and is usually considered part of the power amp.)

The way the distortion is generated is actually exactly like using a Tube Screamer set as a nearly-clean boost into a valve amp - the 'TS diode clipping circuit' in the Blackstar doesn't start to clip until the valve is already well overdriven, and the sound of it is then entirely masked by the valve distortion. The next IC stages operate the tone stack, the FX loop and the master volume control - which is equivalent to using an EQ pedal and a clean boost in the FX loop of a valve amp - the phase inverter is a clean transistor stage which doesn't add to the distortion, and the valve output stage is exactly that…

So in many ways it's pretty much a sort of 'conventional signal path' in the way a lot of valve-amp users do it, but all in one box… guitar > TS > valve preamp > FX send > EQ > boost > FX return > valve power amp > speaker.

ecc83

"the phase inverter is a clean transistor stage which doesn't add to the distortion" A high voltage,  MOSFETransistor  in fact IC.

The stage also has a constant current circuit in the 'tail' and is capable of very high levels of drive at low distortion, a low source resistance * compared to valve PI and extremely well balanced drive. Now, all those qualities are anathema to 'seat of the pants' gitamp design where things are left 'to do their thang!" but is fundamental to the Blackstar creed. They want circuits to do what THEY want them to in the WAY they want them to, WHERE they want them to do it. So yes, ICs develop modest amounts of gain, enough so that when passed onto (noisy, miccy, expensive!) valves the BAD part of the valve is overcome and just the (controlled) distortion produced.

Now if this sounds a bit 'sterile' and contrived ok, it might be but the design approach means a good amplifier can be produced at reasonable cost and moreover the 'scientific' approach means very good consistency time after time . Ok, a few folks say "consistently bad" for them, but as I have said 'you can't please....'

*The big amps use an ECC82 as an extra PI driver to get a really low drive Z and that allows lower than usual grid leaks on the OPV grids which helps with modern valves, many of which have excess grid current and having low resistances about helps mitigate collateral damage when (not if! ) a valve dies in a spectacular manner.

I am also sorry someone had reliability problems. I can assure everyone that amplifiers were VERY rigorously tested and reliability is another plank in Bs philosophy.

Dave.

Dave_Mc

ICBM said:

olafgarten said:

Not really, they are almost full valve in both the pre and power amp but in the preamp there are some Solid State gain stages. 

No they aren't.

The stages which are valve are the ones that give a valve amp most of its 'valve' character, but the bulk of the signal path is solid state - it's closer to a solid-state amp with valve stages than a valve amp with solid-state stages. That's not a judgement on the sounds quality or anything, simply what it is from a circuit topology point of view.

Taking the HT-5 for example:

IC stage 1 > IC  stage 2 > valve stage 1 > valve stage 2 > IC stage 3 > IC stage 4 > IC stage 5 > IC stage 6 > phase inverter (discrete transistor) > output valves

7 solid-state stages vs 3 valve ones.

Most of the distortion occurs in valve stage 2, and the dynamic control of the speaker is from the valve output stage.

Wow as much as that is SS? I think I was maybe overcompensating and trying to be too fair, I usually say (on ultimate guitar, when it comes up, which is about once a week) that it's about 50:50. I guess I should look at the schematic again.

Danny1969 said:

  (a) The important part is all valve,   That's the power amplifier section... The  output transformer et cetera .  These are the parts that give a valve amplifier its character. 
 (b) The other much cheaper way of building a hybrid amp is to use a valve preamplifier and a solid-state power amplifier ....   This is what Marshall do in the valvestate series ....  It's much cheaper to do as there are no expensive power valves no expensive output transformer . 

 I kind of see the Blackstar HT series as being a  clean boost pedal in a valve amp which to be fair is what many many people do ...  Stick a clean boost in front of a valve amp

(a) I'm not sure I agree. If that's true then there's no point in high gain valve amps.

(b) Yeah. They're a lot more valve than those type of things.

(c) I don't really agree, either- I can mix and match boost pedals with a genuinely all-valve amp, I can also turn them off to see how the amp sounds when it's all-valve, and a boost pedal doesn't turn the phase inverter solid state, etc. etc..

ICBM said:

Exactly. The problem I have with the Blackstars is entirely to do with them being marketed as 'all valve', which they were originally - they are most certainly not, by any definition. I'm not even completely convinced they count as 'valve', but I would give the benefit of the doubt since they do at least contain more than one .

Yeah. As I said above, we get about one thread a week on UG asking about them, and it's clear most prospective buyers still think they're all-valve.

And I think the pedals still say "pure valve" on them. (what's "pure valve delay"? )

ecc83

"Wow as much as that is SS? I think I was maybe overcompensating and trying to be too fair, I usually say (on ultimate guitar, when it comes up, which is about once a week) that it's about 50:50. I guess I should look at the schematic again. "

Well when you do Dave, work out how much GAIN the ICs contribute compared to the VALVE stages.

You only need a bit of gain to get the signals above noise and at a low impedance which helps keep noise low further along the circuitry.

Dave.

ICBM

ecc83 said:

"the phase inverter is a clean transistor stage which doesn't add to the distortion" A high voltage,  MOSFETransistor  in fact IC.

The stage also has a constant current circuit in the 'tail' and is capable of very high levels of drive at low distortion, a low source resistance * compared to valve PI and extremely well balanced drive. Now, all those qualities are anathema to 'seat of the pants' gitamp design where things are left 'to do their thang!" but is fundamental to the Blackstar creed. They want circuits to do what THEY want them to in the WAY they want them to, WHERE they want them to do it. So yes, ICs develop modest amounts of gain, enough so that when passed onto (noisy, miccy, expensive!) valves the BAD part of the valve is overcome and just the (controlled) distortion produced.

Now if this sounds a bit 'sterile' and contrived ok, it might be but the design approach means a good amplifier can be produced at reasonable cost and moreover the 'scientific' approach means very good consistency time after time . Ok, a few folks say "consistently bad" for them, but as I have said 'you can't please....'

I think there is something in that - I don't like that very tight response and controlled distortion, I don't think. The voicing is another matter but that's also why I don't like them - I think that the design team actually knows very well what they're doing, but has very different goals from the ones I like in amps…

Interestingly I like some (but not all) purely solid-state amps - like old Peaveys - exactly because they have a much more open, less controlled sound and response. If that means they get a bit 'ratty' and 'harsh' when pushed hard that fine by me - but I understand that's why a lot of people don't like them!