New Laney Range - Digbeth *Foundry*

[Bankai]

The Digbeth range has been around for a few years now and included a combo and a couple of heads, all with a ‘tube’ emulation pre-amp alongside a Class D power section. 

 

However, they announced a couple of days a new subrange called Digbeth ‘Foundry’, kind of based on the mantra from their recent Lionheart Foundry guitar amps.

 

In short, they set out to make inexpensive solid-state amps that do what they say on the tin without any bells and whistles or relying on valves. As such, the ‘tube’ channel of the normal Digbeth models (which will remain in production) is renamed/replaced on foundry models with a footswitchable solidstate ‘drive’ channel instead.

 

The control section is also simplified for a modern user (addition of a master volume too) to make it more accessible.

 

The new Foundry products:

-30w 8” Combo: £169

-50w 10” Combo: £249

-100w 12” Combo: £339

-200w 15” Combo: £449

-200w Head: £299

 

 

An intriguing range of additions!

 

https://www.laney.co.uk/amps/bass/digbeth/dbf200h

 

 

 

 

Photo of the new Foundry DBF200H:

 

Photo of the existing DB200H for comparison:

 

 

 

 

I dig the idea, their sound, and the control layout, so have just pulled the trigger on the head after teetering between a few options from other companies. This foundry line seems to hit the spot just right!

Edited 22 hours ago by Bankai

[MichaelDean]

It does fix the only irk I have with my DB-500H, the foundry has a master volume. I don't know why that was omitted from the original. I look forward to your report when you get it!

[BassAdder60]

Hopefully better than the appalling Foundry Series guitar amps 

Very cheaply built which was a shame as they sounded ok but build quality was shocking 

[MichaelDean]

@BassAdder60 - that's a shame. I thought they looked decent - especially the Lionheart head. My Digbeth is a solid thing. Though the external transformer for the Ironheart Foundry doesn't seem like a great idea. Those flimsy cables are always the first to break. I don't remember ever having a broken kettle lead!

[BigRedX]

Why do amp manufacturers still put the controls on the top of combos?

 

It's not the 50 and 60s any more. No-one (not even tribute bands of artists from that era) puts their amps on the floor and then stands behind them. 

 

The position of the controls should reflect how the amps are used in the real world today (on stands and normally angled upwards) and not reflect some bygone era that is now irrelevant.

[neepheid]

My Markbass combo has top mounted controls, but I don't find it bothersome - mostly because it's stacked on top of a New York 121, so the controls are elevated to easily used territory - high enough so I don't have to bend down but not so high that I can't see the controls.

 

But my rig is sitting flat on the deck, so I'm clearly from an irrelevant, bygone era

 

[BassAdder60]

1 hour ago, MichaelDean said:

@BassAdder60 - that's a shame. I thought they looked decent - especially the Lionheart head. My Digbeth is a solid thing. Though the external transformer for the Ironheart Foundry doesn't seem like a great idea. Those flimsy cables are always the first to break. I don't remember ever having a broken kettle lead!

Made to be affordable but I think with the Foundry guitar series they went a little too far. 
Shame as Laney have some great amps 

[Supernaut]

I prefer knobs on top too. Easy to glance down and make adjustments on the fly. 

[MartinB]

10 hours ago, Bankai said:

The Digbeth range has been around for a few years now and included a combo and a couple of heads, all hybrid with a tube pre-amp alongside a solidstate one and Class D power section. 

[...]

the ‘tube’ channel of the normal Digbeth models (which will remain in production) is renamed/replaced on foundry models with a footswitchable solidstate ‘drive’ channel instead.

 

There's no tube in the original Digbeth models - the second channel has tube-style drive but is solid state. This isn't a criticism though - they sound really good!

[Lozz196]

1 hour ago, Supernaut said:

I prefer knobs on top too. Easy to glance down and make adjustments on the fly. 

Same, buttons on front difficult to see, and in my case difficult to bend down to see as well.

[MichaelDean]

That's why you need to stack it on an 810. Makes the front controls much easier to see 😁

[Bankai]

22 minutes ago, MartinB said:

 

There's no tube in the original Digbeth models - the second channel has tube-style drive but is solid state. This isn't a criticism though - they sound really good!

I wonder if the channel is any different on this then, or whether it’s just a name change.

[MichaelDean]

The drive sounds very similar from what I've heard on YouTube...

[Chienmortbb]

No criticism of the playing except, it was all on the higher strings of a 6 string. Hardly pushing a bass amp. 

[BassAdder60]

3 minutes ago, Chienmortbb said:

No criticism of the playing except, it was all on the higher strings of a 6 string. Hardly pushing a bass amp. 

Exactly what I thought. She may of well played a guitar through the amp instead of a bass !

That titting about on the fretboard doesn’t show an amp off for bass 

[BassmanPaul]

I loved that clip exactly because it was played on a six string! I have been using instruments with six strings, both fretted and without, for a long time. It is so strange how some folks view these basses. They seem OK with a five string but a six gives them pause. For me, a six gives me a wider range of fingerings but it is still primarily a BASS!!

 

Yes it would have been better if she had dropped down to the lower strings - possibly played the passage an octave down to demonstrate the handling of the amplifier but many 'soloists' on our instrument chose to play in the upper registers. I don't know why as the last thing I am is a soloist!

 

 

Edited yesterday at 16:32 by BassmanPaul

[neepheid]

12 minutes ago, BassmanPaul said:

I loved that clip exactly because it was played on a six string! I have been using instruments with six strings, both fretted and without, for a long time. It is so strange how some folks view these basses. They seem OK with a five string but a six gives them pause. For me, a six gives me a wider range of fingerings but it is still primarily a BASS!!

 

Yes it would have been better if she had dropped down to the lower strings - possibly played the passage an octave down to demonstrate the handling of the amplifier but many 'soloists' on our instrument chose to play in the upper registers. I don't know why as the last thing I am is a soloist!

 

 

 

No-one was complaining because it was a six string - merely commenting on how said six string was used.

[BassmanPaul]

1 hour ago, neepheid said:

 

No-one was complaining because it was a six string - merely commenting on how said six string was used.

I know, I was just so happy to see a six being used it is somewhat rare.

[Bankai]

I agree. Nice to see a six come out to demonstrate the full range of bassing, it’s just a shame she didn’t really drop below the top two strings as I would have liked to have heard her dig in for a bit at the low end!

[BigRedX]

IME it is always easier to hear myself if at least one of the speakers is pointing at my ears rather than my knees or my groin. That means either mounting the combo on a tilt-back stand or putting at least one other cab underneath it. Both of those things place top mounted controls (for me at least) in a position that is both difficult to see and reach.

 

The original reasoning behind top-mounted controls is that the amps would be placed on the floor in front of the musicians. Not only were the controls on top but labels were orientated so that they read the right way up when viewed from the back. Since this placement hasn't been regularly used since the early 50s it makes little sense to continue building amps this way.

[neepheid]

20 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

IME it is always easier to hear myself if at least one of the speakers is pointing at my ears rather than my knees or my groin. That means either mounting the combo on a tilt-back stand or putting at least one other cab underneath it. Both of those things place top mounted controls (for me at least) in a position that is both difficult to see and reach.

 

The original reasoning behind top-mounted controls is that the amps would be placed on the floor in front of the musicians. Not only were the controls on top but labels were orientated so that they read the right way up when viewed from the back. Since this placement hasn't been regularly used since the early 50s it makes little sense to continue building amps this way.

 

You do know that they label the controls the other way these days, yes?

 

[Bankai]

I imagine from a manufacturing point of view, it’s easier/cheaper to put the control panel into the top?

 

That way the front can just be a simple grille cloth and speaker baffle.

[BigRedX]

It allows the valves and other parts of 1940s/50s amp designs that get hot to hang down into the speaker compartment where they can dissipate the heat more easily.