AmpTalk.com

[Mark67]

We've been playing with one of these for a month now and recently returned it to the store. I am of the opinion that an amp that costs upwards of $1,200 should not require so much fiddling and consternation. It should sound great from the start; any adjustments should be icing on the cake. That shouldn't be an unrealistic expectation.

The Supersonic by rights should be a huge boon for Fender, filling a need and capturing a market for a versatile high-quality combo amp. It's a great looking amp and a great concept. Now, there may yet be blues players who could get a lot from this amp as-is, but I frankly don't think this amp will serve rock players well--it is not nearly as versatile as it should be. (Country players already have their favorite classic Fenders which serve their needs nicely).

The first channel ("Vintage") toggles between a Vibrolux circuit and a Bassman circuit. The Vibrolux circuit at low volume is OK, but up at playing level is simply far too spiky--not so much brittle, but the dreaded aural icepick when the strings are struck with any sort of force. The Bassman circuit is a bit more pleasant, but also a bit of a caricature of a Bassman rather than a reproduction--serviceable, but a bit too dark. The Bassman could work for some players, though.

Now besides the spikiness of attack (which also oddly features in the rounder Bassman circuit as well) the real weakness of this amp is the lack of midrange on either "Vintage" setting--a scooped EQ curve prevails that (to my ears) robs the sound of dimension. Turn up the mids, you say? No, no--for purposes of "authenticity" Fender doesn't include mid control, as the amps to which homage is made hadn't any, either. All well and good, had they nailed a great sound to begin with.

To compound matters, there is a strong level difference between these two options--the volume difference between Vibro to Bassman settings is pronounced. Nor can you set the EQ and leave it--it needs to be changed if you decide on one or the other. Some say "Who needs to switch between clean sounds?" I say "Why include the option, then? Sounds like rationalizing." And I understand rationalization--it's an amp you really, really want to like.

Furthermore, it gets f'n LOUD real quick--that 0-to-60 in 2 seconds effect. This always annoys me with amps. Anything beyond 4 shatters windows. Fender amps usually have decent volume attenuation. I know 60 watts is pretty powerful, but for heaven's sake, it's a 1 x 12 combo.

The second channel is real overdrive/distortion, and quite a bit better OD than Fender is known for. It is not to die for, but it is still quite decent and fairly versatile. The weakness here is that it is difficult to find that elusive "right before breakup" point; it is simply a bit too hairy from the get-go. But for solos, classic rock, or dirty blues, it works.

As an aside, I am used to having to screw with any outside pedals when you switch amps and guitars, but found the Supersonic very frustrating when it came to tailoring the pedals to the amp. Too much EQ fiddling for something you don't love!

The price tag just does not warrant the excessive fiddling/rationalizing one must do with this amp. It is just not an inspiring sound; in fact, it can really be downright unpleasant. I never think of your typical biggies Fender/Marshall/Vox as "unpleasant" except at extreme settings.

The sad thing is that I can still hear the potential of a great amp in there. If you have technical experience you could probably turn this into a tone machine. Perhaps with a re-tubing, a bias adjustment, a long burn-in period (maybe even a speaker changeout) could do wonders for this amp--but then, at what cost?