Yes except you are off by @10 years. Gain increase came about 2004. I am one of those guys you speak of... I had 100b serial number 001. it was made in Feb 1992 IIRC the bottom of the footswitc was dated. It might have been 1991 or 1993. but think it was 92. 101b was pretty fresh iteration in 1994. Might have even still been the white chassis 101 with cabinet switching in 1994.. not sure of exact dates anymore.. The amp is the clip is one of the early 101b.
Yes it came yesterday. I have not had much time to check it out yet.. From what I hear so far, I like it and may have to keep it. The loop master works awesome for bringing it down to really low volumes and still sounding fat and feeling great under the fingers. Definitely more gradual onset of gain than the 35 water from what I can recall having playing one on a few occasions at Velco Fly's. I have Marshall tone imprinted in my brain so I have to remind myself , this is not meant to out-Marshall my Marshalls. Over the weekend I will have a chance to crank it and check it out more thoroughly.
If you are a fan of the more open less compressed from what the guys at Bogner are saying that’s what the 50 watt is more aimed at
What‘s the verdict?
Well after so many amps, I have learned to give it some time before making any bold claims. But I like this amp. It definitely has more of the original sound and feel on the blue channel than the 35. Red channels seems less over the top and useable for much if not all of the gain sweep. Green channels reminds more of my old 100b. Bold and hard and very little breakup even with gain cranked. Not much to speak of in terms of dirty clean. It mostly just clean clean. The boost function (blue and red) and lots of hair, a pretty significant volume jump and a heap of lows which I don't love for most things hi gain. Overall , it is very good amp. A nice smoother alternative to playing through 800's most of the time.
Would you say the red can hit the same tones as Blake’s clip of the 96 Version or would you need to hit it still with a boost to get to that ?
I had the original version and the blue channel seemed to be lacking a little gain. It sounded good with the boost on but needed a little help with it off. Does the 50 solve that?
Tough to say since I no longer have a 100 or 101 to compare it to. Plus the 101b seemed to vary a bit in tone and the amount of gain on the blue channels at least to some degree. I think I have had 14 xtc's in all over the last 25 years and none of them sounded quite the same. If memory serves this is a bout the same amount of gain as all but the hottest of the them. Maybe it has a bit more? Tough to sat from memory. But I would say that if you are craving lots of gain you will need to boost the blue on this one too. Tho boost really changes the character a lot. It adds a lot of lows (not crazy about that for the most part) and a fair bit of a volume jump in addition to gain. The red channel has plenty of gain with out the boost but not such a mushy mess like before.
Soldano Vertical 212 with v 30.. sound ok but a little spikey sounding cab in general. maybe because its a slant so its kind of in your face sounding.
I don't think it needs a boost to get that level of gain however it may not sounds just like that. Lots of other factors in the tone, but the amp is capable.
Thanks for the update JdubSome further takes on the Ecstasy 50...
All I all I really like it and is definitely worth having. It sounds much like it's big brother. at least from what I can tell from memory. I can't say that about the first 3534. That amp sounded more modern and did't have as much of the woody tone and elastic, bouncy feeling that is characteristic of the XTC. This amp has that!
I don't have tons of other amps as a point of reference but I did a little a/b with what I do have.
Compared to my 4104's . There is almost zero common ground. Opposite ends of spectrum The 800 is brash and raw, Ecstasy is polished and refined.
DSL 50 . Ecstasy sounds much sweeter and way more versatile, but the DSL sounds like a hot rodded Marshall. Nothings does Marshall better than Marshall.
Mesa Mark IV. The Bogner holds up pretty well and is easier to dial in, but the Mark IV is it's own animal. If only it didn't weigh 80 pounds. It is for sale in the classifieds but after tonight's comparison, I may pull the ad. That amp is a monster.
SLO 30. Here is where I was very surprised. I had this amp before and loved it! I only sold it because I needed money at that the time. When I had it Velro Fly had a 3534 35 water.. we both thought the SLO 30 was much much better. Now a year or two later I borrowed his SL0 30 to compare to to the XTC 50.. This time around I like the XTC 50 much better than the SLO 30. This so weird because because as much as I love both Soldano and Bogner amps and played them since the 90's if push came to shove and I had to pick one, it was the SLO but it was a tough call. . In the case there is zero wavering... Just like like it was no contest when I chose the SLO 30 over the original 3534... I am curious to see if Velcro fly's take is the same or my ears are trippin'.
1966 Bassman. No surprises here... the Ecstasy 50 and the Bassman sound almost identical no matter how I twist the knobs......
Overall takeaway. I like it and it is ear pleasing change from Marshall, Marshall, Marshall all the time.. This amp is fun, versatile, easy to play and sounds and feels great at all volumes.. even very low speaking volume.. Comes alive and and opens up with some volume.. loop works great. ( loop Master is really handy). The onboard boost is nice but depending on amp settings, can get a little too fat and woofy, but it really helps add that extra chunk, especially on the blue channel.
I will make some clips if I find the time and motivation. .
Oh Yeah!!! I have done that before... lots over the years actually.. It is an epic combo!! Bogner 100b serial - - / (001) and a 1989 SLO was the first time I tried it. Did not suck at all!!
