ZT Amplifiers Inc.

"Lunchbox" Evaluation
Charles Randall Couch, March 2010, with a LOT of help from associates

Recently I read a "Wikipedia" article regarding amplifiers. The article addressed

home use stereo, home theater amplifiers and similar products - not guitar
amplifiers. Many of the points could be applied to musical instrument amplifiers
for those appreciative of low distortion sound reproduction, like many jazz
musicians.

If I was writing for a technically-inclined audience, I wouldn't use that piece as

source material. A parameter that originated this discussion was amplifier output
power which the Wikipedia article addresses specifically. I have opinions about
the way this parameter is measured and advertised and I thought that the
following quotation described both sides of the issue with fairness.

I've re-organized the material so that each position is easily recognized. My

changes are identified by blue text.

Output power

The traditional definition:

Output power for amplifiers is ideally measured and quoted as maximum Root
Mean Square (RMS) power output per channel, at a specified distortion level at a
particular load and over a particular frequency range, which by convention and
government regulation, is considered the most meaningful measure of power
available on music signals, though real, non-clipping music has a high peak-to-
average ratio, and usually averages well below the maximum possible.

The commonly given measurement of PMPO (peak music power out) is largely
meaningless and often used in marketing literature; in the late 1960s there was
much controversy over this point and the US Government (FTA) required that
RMS figures be quoted for all high fidelity equipment. Music power has been
making a comeback in recent years. See also Audio power.

Power specifications require the load impedance to be specified, and in some

cases two figures will be given (for instance, a power amplifier for loudspeakers
will be typically measured at 4 and 8 ohms). Any amplifier will drive more
current to a lower impedance load. For example, it will deliver more power into a
4-ohm load, as compared to 8-ohm, but it must not be assumed that it is capable
of sustaining the extra current unless it is specified so. Power supply limitations
may limit high current performance.

An alternative approach:
 An amplifier can be designed with audio output circuitry capable of generating a
certain power level, but with a power supply unable to supply sufficient power for
more than a very short time, and with heat sinking that will overheat dangerously
if full output power is maintained for long.

This makes good technical and commercial sense, as the amplifier can handle
music with a relatively low mean power, but with brief peaks; a high 'music
power' output can be advertised (and delivered), and money saved on the power
supply and heat sink. Program sources that are significantly compressed are
more likely to cause trouble, as the mean power can be much higher for the same
peak power. Circuitry which protects the amplifier and power supply can prevent
equipment damage in the case of sustained high power operation.

How can a musician compare traditional amplifier designs with current compact,
lightweight interpretations?

This evaluation of the "Lunchbox" (henceforth referred to as "LB") originated from

that question and from the observation that advertised values of output power
levels aren't consistent. Power levels are expressed in units of measure that
vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.

Although I've discussed this "dichotomy" previously, I've not mentioned this
specific product until Ken Kantor, designer of the ZT Amplifiers Lunchbox joined
our forum. After a few public exchanges of opinion, Mister Kantor and I agreed
to conduct private discussion in the interest of converging toward a consensus of
comparison.

To that end, ZT Amplifiers provided me with a LB amplifier and spare parts. After
executing a non-disclosure agreement, I was able to disassemble, visually
inspect, electrically measure and otherwise evaluate the amplifier as if it was my
own property provided that no proprietary information was disclosed.

This was an unprecedented experience - so far as I know, manufacturers have

NEVER provided this level of cooperation to an independent evaluator.

Seeking to obtain the maximum amount of information in the shortest time, I

asked four forum members for assistance.

These members are geographically and musically diverse. We are

located at the extreme east-west coastal boundaries and at the extreme
north-south national borders (excluding Alaska) of our country.

Two members, working professionals experienced at various musical

genres, use this product frequently. One is essentially a solo performer
and the other musician usually performs with a large band, using multiple
instruments with the amplifier.
 Two members have expressed interest in the LB but have no knowledge
of or experience with the product. Both are semi-professional musicians
and work with modest-sized bands.

My responsibilities were performance measurement and coordination.

Please note that no incentive was provided to members of the evaluation team,
financial or otherwise, that could pose a conflict of interest or the appearance of a
conflict of interest to the unbiased review of this product. (In fact, substantial
personal expenses were incurred by product team members in the form of
shipping costs - not to mention the expenditure of a great deal of personal time.)

I've spent time measuring and recording data, analyzing the data, sharing and
discussing my results (and criticism) with the designer of the LB. The LB
designer also shared his time, opinions and experience regarding the design
philosophy of this new generation of compact, high-power amplifiers.

He also defended and sometimes criticized my criticism, which is a necessary

and desirable process if useful dialogue is to result. There were disagreements
in other words but I hope that we've both benefitted from the exchange.

Meanwhile other team members were exchanging thoughts about how the
evaluation should be conducted: comparisons with similar products, creating
tools by which information could be collected, what the average guitarist would
like to know about the product and similar subjects.

The LB has acquired many frequent flyer miles during the past month. The
evaluation, to date, has required a minimum of one hundred twenty man-hours
(person-hours) as well as significant resources not available to the average
guitarist. That doesn't include contributions from the two active musicians that
use this amplifier routinely.

Individual opinions were compartmented until the conclusion of the evaluation so

that evaluators weren't influenced by the statements of others. The information
in this summary is described in the words of the evaluators. In the case of the
busy working musicians, a questionnaire was e-mailed to them so that they could
respond quickly. The rest of the evaluation team hadn't the same time
pressures; we could expand our evaluations.
This compact device has features that aren't representative of a traditional musical instrument
amplifier; the LB is representative of the second category in the Wikipedia description.

Power measurements, as I've noted in the past, are poor substitutes for sound
pressure level measurements (for combo amplifiers). Until real standardization
of SPL measurement occurs we're left with power measurement as an indication
of whether a particular amplifier is suitable for a particular venue.

Some simple examples:

Is a Fender "Champ" at 6 watts RMS output power capable of performing

in a venue where a guitarist normally performs with a Fender "Princeton"
(12 - 15 watts RMS)? An example might be a small neighborhood piano
bar, accompanying a vocalist.

In a larger venue with a dance floor, perhaps a Fender "Vibrolux" (about

40 watts RMS) has been used successfully. Could a Fender "Deluxe
Reverb" (22 watts RMS) be capable of "keeping up with the band"?

Would a "Twin" be necessary or could a "Super Reverb" or "Bandmaster"

suffice when sitting in with a "forties dance band" with full complement of
horns?

(Fender amplifier examples are used because most of us are familiar with their
RMS power levels, although we may not be familiar with how the measurement is
made.)
The amplifiers noted are vacuum tube amplifiers, so comparison with a solid
state device is not always easy.

(A rule-of-thumb that I personally employ: a vacuum tube amplifier is

about 1 to 1-1/2 dB "louder" than a solid-state amplifier. The basis for this
opinion is the level of harmonic distortion that seems tolerable to most of
us when vacuum tube amplifiers are compared to transistor amplifiers.)

When the LB was received and after a brief functional test, I disassembled the
amplifier. Visual inspection showed the product to be imaginatively, competently
packaged and stoutly constructed. The small cabinet requires a high degree of
component density in a sealed enclosure. (Sorting out vibration and microphonic
problems in this small package may have been a project in itself, considering the
high sound pressure levels imposed on components in close proximity to the
loudspeaker.)

I compared the LB with three other amplifiers on hand that were within a few dB
of the LB output power level. Unhappily, I only had three that were readily
comparable; others were either too low or too high in power level.

(I included a vacuum tube amplifier in this comparison, because I'd like to

compare compression and multi-tone distortion characteristics between the two
types of amplifiers, not because I felt that the tube amplifier was a good
comparison. This was just a good opportunity to accumulate/record data for later
examination.)

The characteristic that was most impressive to me, as a jazz guitarist, was the
extremely low level of distortion exhibited by the LB. One generally expects this
of solid-state amplifiers that employ negative feedback, but two of the
comparison amplifiers were similarly configured and didn't offer performance
comparable to the LB. One was close but the other (a higher power amplifier)
was much worse.

I should note that this isn't an opinion based on audibly perceived distortion.
That is the way that amplifiers are generally compared - which is no valid
comparison at all. The above statement is based on extensive spectral
measurement and calculated levels of distortion throughout the audible spectrum
for four different amplifiers.

Noise levels of the LB were higher than other amplifiers measured. Not
excessively so, just measurably. (Oddly, the vacuum tube amplifier was one of
the best in this category).

Compression (gain linearity) characteristics were representative of a good quality

solid-state amplifier and quite different, as we all know, from vacuum tube
amplifiers. That's both good and bad, depending on opinion and the type of
music generally played. Personally, I'm a one-trick pony: jazz with full-bodied
single-pickup guitars.

The LB suited me because it could be adjusted to produce a generous amount of

volume with undetectable break-up. In other words the amplifier did what I most
prefer: reproducing my guitar sonic signature accurately but loudly.

(Outboard EQ is useful to accommodate venue sonic variation and expand the

low frequency response of the small loudspeaker in the LB. Other evaluators of
the product - as we'll see - suggest that some pre-emphasis is possible without
excessive low-frequency distortion.)

On to "loudness" … recalling earlier comments regarding output power and how

the LB differs from other amplifiers to which it was compared. The power
measurements that I performed were those recommended by the Federal Trade
Commission output power ruling described in the first part of the Wikipedia
discussion.

The LB delivers about 60 watts RMS output power under safe thermal and load
conditions to the internal speaker. With the internal speaker switched off, the LB
can deliver 30 watts RMS to an 8 ohm external speaker. While driving both the
internal and external speakers, the LB delivers a combined output power of just
under 60 watts RMS.

That places the LB RMS power between a Fender Bassman and a Fender Twin.
Loudness obviously is a function of loudspeaker efficiency. Little can be inferred
from the RMS power rating unless all amplifiers being compared have identical
loudspeaker characteristics.

The design philosophy of the LB is that music power, by its nature, isn't well
characterized by continuous RMS power measurements. The product was
designed to be a niche product; other amplifiers aren't comparable in power, size,
cost and weight. In order to provide an amplifier with this efficiency in a tiny
package, ZT notes that it's not feasible to design for continuous CW RMS output
power and that it's impractical to provide this type of specification for the product.

As mentioned specifically in the Wikipedia article, the power supply of an

amplifier is one area where cost, weight and size advantages can be
accumulated if one doesn't design for worst-case scenario. In other words, the
power supply needs to be designed to support loud transient responses but not
continuous high-power signals. That's - again - the entire point of the LB
amplifier.

Similarly, one needn't follow conventional thermal design if the expectation is an

intermittent, duty-cycle environment where the input signal isn't representative of
higher output power levels (continuous square wave, clipped sine wave, sine
wave and similar high integrated power signals).

Acknowledging that there are no amplifiers quite like the LB, my initial concern
was how to compare with other amplifiers that may be similar but differ in
standards of output power.

Frankly, that's still a partly unanswered question - one that I'd hoped to approach
by extended measurement and analysis of complex signal waveforms. I haven't
given up that goal but other pressures have caused me to defray the work.

At the moment, my personal opinion is that CW RMS power, the most

conservative measurement, is also best for evaluating and comparing various
amplifiers BUT also the most dangerous for some solid-state amplifiers (and
absolutely not recommended without approval of the amplifier manufacturer).

Because amplifiers like the LB aren't thermally designed like conventional

amplifiers, prolonged testing with CW (continuous wave) sinusoidal signals will
produce overheating. Under normal conditions (music) this doesn't occur
because of the duty cycle and spectral distribution of music compared to
sinusoidal signals.

My measurements were therefore conducted in a forced-air cooling environment.

Even this technique can be dangerous if one has no knowledge of the internal
packaging, thermal paths and locations of the highest heat generators. And this,
of course, is ALWAYS the case. This particular example - where measurements
were conducted with the knowledge and approval of the manufacturer - has
occurred only once in my long career as musician and engineer.

So, after many hours of measurement and discussion, fifty pages of data, charts,
graphs of data and comparison obtained from four different amplifiers of similar
output power, I'm left with a very favorable impression of the LB amplifier from
the viewpoint of an engineer.

It's apparent from internal examination of the product and from discussion with
the LB designer that this isn't a hastily assembled grad-student project but a
thoughtfully designed, frequently reiterated product. It's my impression that the
product wasn't marketed until the manufacturer felt that a satisfactorily
performing and reliable product had evolved.

Certain weaknesses were revealed during testing but those may have resulted
from the philosophical differences noted in the Wikipedia article. All information
of this nature was transmitted to and acknowledged by ZT Amplifiers.

Diverting for a moment and offering a personal suggestion for "improvement" (as
all team members were asked to provide) I had a thought ...
The ZT Amplifier "Club" is currently under evaluation by the same team that
reviewed the "Lunchbox". It occurred to me, after trying the "Club" briefly, that a
working professional musician could benefit by owning both of these amplifiers.
Here's my reasoning for that opinion:

In the simplest scenario, LB would be the backup for the "Club".

For sonic flexibility, the main amplifier could employ the small LB as a
satellite system or for use in stereo applications such as chorused/delayed
effects.

If the main amplifier should fail, it's likely that the 12 inch internal
loudspeaker would still be functional. If the speaker connection was
externally available, it could effectively be driven by the LB.

The combined weight of both amplifiers is about the same as a "Cube 60"
and quite a bit lighter than any "small" vacuum tube amplifier (20 watts or
so).

The "Club" evaluation has barely commenced so these comments are hasty. In
any event the capability for some of the above scenarios doesn't yet exist. The
suggestions have been communicated to ZT for consideration as future product
enhancements.

The extensive amount of measured data isn't of interest to our general forum
audience, I think. If there are questions about measurements and results
(provided that the non-disclosure agreement isn't stressed) I'd be pleased to
discuss them.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX first post ends XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Let's continue the evaluation with the impressions of two working musicians,
who've been using the LB for some time. Both Jeff (Mr. Beaumont) and John
Rosett have busy schedules and these musicians represent variety in musical
repertoire, amplifier power requirements and how they transport and use the
product. As you'll note in the following combined questionnaire, their viewpoints
are insightful.

ZT Lunchbox Professional Performers’ Questionnaire (2 respondents)

Reasons for selecting Lunchbox: Respondent #1 Respondent #2

Size/Weight  
Cost 
Primary amplifier? 
Back-up amplifier? 
Comments:
R#1: My main amp is a Polytone MB III – roughly 30 lbs. The idea of going even smaller was
very appealing for jazz gigs.
R#2: I love the portability of the Lunchbox.

Primary speaker configuration: Respondent #1 Respondent #2

Internal speaker exclusively 
External speaker exclusively
Combination internal/external 
Comments:
R#1: I was originally more pleased with the tone through a small extension cabinet; now I find I
like the tone best with outboard reverb and EQ and just using the Lunchbox’s internal speaker.
R#2: I have a 15" speaker, and was going to use it, but haven't felt the need. I do line it out to the
PA sometimes (see below).

Optional features: Respondent #1 Respondent #2

Yes No Yes No
Do you use the ‘headphone’ option?  
Do you use the ‘external input’
option?  
Do you employ a microphone/PA
option with the amplifier? When?  
Comments:
R#2: I use the headphone jack as a line out to the PA for larger gigs (when we play with a
drummer). It works perfectly.

External Effects: Respondent #1 Respondent #2

Sometimes Always Never Sometimes Always Never
Do you use stompboxes or
multi-effects processors  
with the Lunchbox?
Comments:
R#1: I’d actually say most of the time – always for gigs, sometimes at home.

Frequency of usage: Respondent #1 Respondent #2

Number of working sessions/ week (include 5 2–4
practices)
Number of typical sets per session 2 3
Break time between sets 15 min. 20 min.
Pause time between tunes Less than 30 sec. 1 min.
Number of band members per session Solo act 6
(average)
Instrumentation? Solo act – guitar only See comments
Comments:
R#2: Acoustic guitar, upright bass, fiddle, mandolin, drums; have not had any problems.

Types of usage: Respondent #1 Respondent #2

Typical venue size (performance) 10-30 people, have used for Large Dance Hall / Bar
a few performances for
100+ people
Typical venue size (practice) 100 Sq. Ft. 200 Sq. Ft.
Means of home-to-session Backpack Car
transport
Do you switch off the amp during Usually No
breaks?
How do you position the Lunchbox On the floor, as bass See comments
(e.g., floor, stool, etc.) for optimum response is not suitable if
performance? elevated.
Comments:
R#2: On a chair for rehearsal. On a chair or on top of another amp for performance. Its size
makes it very easy to place.

Ratings (1-to-10 scale): Respondent #1 Respondent #2

Overall sound quality 6 8
Adequate power level for venue 10 10
size
EQ capability 4 7
Comments:
R#2: I have not had a problem with being heard. It took me a while to figure out how to get the
best tone for my needs with the ‘tone’ control and the ‘reverb’ (ambiance) control, but it sounds
good now.

Have recorded with Lunchbox? Respondent #1 Respondent #2

Results (1 to 10) 2 Have not tried recording with
it yet.
Mic’d or direct? Mic’d.
Comments:
R#1: Not suitable – too mid-rangy, audible hiss thru mic. (This hiss is not noticeable during
performance, however.)

Your primary music genre:

R#1: Jazz.
R#2: Western Swing.

Types of instruments played through this amplifier:

R#1: Fender Telecaster, Godin 5th Avenue.
R#2: 1948 Epiphone + floating humbucking pickup, Fender Telecaster, steel guitar with single
coil pickup.

What features would make this the ‘perfect’ small portable amplifier?
R#1: At least two-band EQ, ‘real’ reverb, voiced for a bit more bass. (In my opinion, the speaker
can handle it, as evidenced by the difference in sound when an external equalizer is used; the
amp is simply not voiced for it.)
R#2: I'm pretty happy with it the way it is.

If lost, would you replace this product with the same, or would you shop around?
R#1: Likely yes. While I do not feel the amplifier is perfect, I also feel there’s nothing else quite
like it on the market.
R#2: I would definitely get another one.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX second post ends XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The following review was written by Tom Karol, who made a substantial amount
of time available to evaluate the LB. Tom possesses a great deal of amplifier
experience in general. Those of you who have read his almost fifty year personal
log of musical equipment acquisitions and divestments can certainly appreciate
this.

Comparing the ZT Lunchbox to a Roland Cube60

Background/Test Plan
I have been a part-time professional musician for many years – I’m 61 now, and I started playing
the guitar when I was 11. I have a smattering of professional recording studio experience, and I
spent a brief amount of time working in consumer audio back in the day as well. I believe my
hearing is still quite acute, but I suspect that its high end now tops out at about 14 kHz.

My main amp rig for all genres currently consists of a stock Henriksen JazzAmp 112, with or
without Henriksen’s outboard tweeter, and sometimes supplemented with a VOX ToneLab ST
multi-effects unit.

My alternate/backup amp is a Roland Cube 60, an eminently gig-able amp and a great value, but
which could conceivably be replaced by a ZT Lunchbox, which is dramatically smaller and lighter
as well as being less expensive. My requirements are simple: As small and light as possible, as
loud as the Cube 60, satisfying standalone sound with no frills necessary. So, Randy and I
thought it might be a good thing to have me do a subjective comparison of the Cube 60 and ZT
1
Lunchbox once he was done with his objective measurements.

I have four electric guitars:

 A Hamer T-51 (Tele clone) with Harmonic Design Vintage Plus pickups. These single-coil
pickups are a bit hotter than normal Tele pickups with a touch of P90 character.

 A Crafter SA. This looks quite similar to a Taylor T5, but it’s actually a thin-line semi-hollow
archtop with an acoustic bridge. It has a KA lipstick-style single-coil neck pickup (mellow
twang) and a Baggs piezo. It has onboard active EQ (bass, middle, and treble @ ±12db) and
a slider to blend the magnetic and piezo pickups.

 A Crafter SAT. This has the same body construction as the SA, but features a KA stacked
(humbucking) P90 in the neck position and a conventional (as in a 335), but still active,
control layout. While it also has the Baggs piezo under the bridge saddle, I normally use it as
a straight-ahead jazz guitar utilizing only the neck pickup.

 Finally, I have a little Vagabond acoustic travel guitar which incorporates a passive piezo
2
pickup under the bridge saddle.

The Cube 60 has a variety of amp models and built-in effects. For the purposes of this
comparison, I will be taking its channel-switching capability out of the equation (acquiring rhythm
and lead settings by manipulating the guitar’s controls and my picking techniques – just like in the
old days) and limiting myself to the settings illustrated below – not the only settings I normally
use, but representative of Cube’s capabilities in different contexts – and then attempting to
approximate the resulting sounds (or at least to produce equally usable ones) at volume levels up
to and possibly beyond the Cube 60’s operational maximum3 with the Lunchbox’s much simpler
controls.
Cube 60 settings

Pop/Rock with the T-51:

Tweed Vol Bass Mid Treb Pres Delay Guitar
4
¼ ½ ½ ½+3 ½+2 ½+1 9:00 10

Solo with the Crafter SA:

JC Clean Bass Mid Treb Pres Rev Guitar

¼ +1 ½ ¾ ¼ ½-3 3:00 ¾M¼P

Jazz with the Crafter SAT:

Twin Vol Bass Mid Treb Pres Rev Guitar

½-1 ¼+2 ½ ¾ ¼ ¼ 3:00 Variable

Vagabond Travel Guitar5:

Acoustic Vol Bass Mid Treb Pres Reverb

½ ¼ ¾ ½ ¼ ¼ 3:00

These comparisons will be performed in my living room, a sonic environment very familiar to me
(see Photo 1). The amps will be about 10’ away from me. So-called ‘standing waves’ should not
be an issue, as the back wall opens up into another room. While I don’t normally use the VOX
ToneLab ST with the Cube 60, I will try it with the ZT Lunchbox. I’ll also try the Lunchbox by itself
at a rock-band rehearsal along with bass, drums, keys, and vocals.

Results

Initial Impressions:
Well, it clearly surpasses anything else I’ve ever encountered that’s anywhere near its size and
weight. It is somewhat dry and upper-midrangey, and there’s not much bottom end (though what
there is stays pretty clean). It’s also reasonably quiet. The ambiance control didn’t please me at
all. I tried it at 12:00, then 3:00, then 9:00, and then I left it off – sounded fatter to me that way. A
little outboard reverb or delay would certainly be beneficial. Because of this, I decided to do my
comparisons to the Cube 60 without utilizing its reverb or delay. All in all, the Lunchbox is very
impressive for what it is – it’s a tiny little 9 pound amp after all!
Pop/Rock with the T-51:
I found a combination of settings that worked well. I think it would be gig-able. However, it’s
simply not as subjectively loud (no SPL measurements were performed) or as rich sounding as
the Cube 60 on the ‘Tweed’ settings shown above. Here’s what I came up with:

Ambiance Tone Volume Gain

0 10:00 3:00 1:00

Solo with the Crafter SA:

This one was a winner. I was able to get a sound that equaled in quality the one I could produce
with the Cube 60. The reason? Active EQ on board the guitar! I boosted the bass by about 6db,
left the middle on flat, and cut the treble by about 3 db. (I’m guessing here, because there are no
markings on each side of the center detents.) This would indicate that an EQ pedal could prove
very useful with this amp. My mag-to-piezo blend remained at 75%/25%. I tried the ambiance
control again, but the sound still seemed richer without it.

Ambiance Tone Volume Gain

0 9:00 12:00 9:00

Jazz with the Crafter SAT:

This one was better than expected. I got a very nice, if somewhat middy (not muddy) jazz tone. In
fact, I liked it as much as the Cube 60’s sound except for the lack of richness in the bass range.
(It was relatively clear, but not as deep.) This would probably work acceptably in a small
ensemble context. I didn’t even think to try the ambiance control this time – more on that later.

Ambiance Tone Volume Gain

0 9:00 11:00 11:00

Vagabond Travel Guitar:

This one surprised me. Being a little acoustic travel guitar with a passive under-the-saddle piezo,
it doesn’t have much bottom end. Coupled with the Lunchbox’s lack of deep bass output, I
thought I would get a very tinny result. But I was able to get a reasonable generic electro-acoustic
sound by setting things like this (and again the ambiance control was tried and rejected):

Ambiance Tone Volume Gain

0 0 9:00 3:00

And it’s only fair to note that this guitar and amp rig could easily be transported on a bicycle!
Ambiance control (& Headphones):
Another nice surprise was encountered here. The amp sounded very good through (cheap)
headphones. This leads me to believe that it might well be useful for direct recording or driving an
external speaker cabinet (which I don’t possess). I used the ‘Tele’ with the following settings:

Ambiance Tone Volume Gain HP Volume

10:00 9:00 3:00 12:00 Max

This also gave me the opportunity to zero in on the nature of the ‘Ambiance’ effect and the
distortion characteristics.

The ambiance effect really is an open-back cabinet simulator, as the manufacturer clearly states.
It does work nicely in this context giving the sound a bit of air.

The distortion characteristics (Gain anywhere from 3:00 to max) don’t particularly please me, but
then – except for the sound of power tubes being pushed hard – I’m really not much of a
distortion guy. If I could still lift it, I’d still have my ’68 silver-face non-master volume Twin Reverb
with EV-SRO’s.

Multi-effects "effectiveness":
Before hooking up the VOX ToneLab ST, I set up the Lunchbox in my normal living room practice
location – about 4’ away on the floor (see Photo 2) and plugged in the ‘Tele’ with a 6’ cable.
(Note: if you use the Lunchbox with headphones at night and turn the internal speaker off, make
sure you turn the speaker back on before you use it again the next day or you’ll think it’s broken!)

The following settings produced a very pleasing tone at low-to-moderate volume – louder than a
Roland Micro Cube’s maximum clean capability and pretty much at the limit of a VOX DA5’s
clean, though the DA10 could go louder than this and still stay clean when required to do so. I
could get anything from Jazzy to Chickin’Pickin’ by manipulating the controls on the guitar. So, I
left the amp set up like this for my ToneLab test, except that I boosted the volume to 12:00.

Ambiance Tone Volume Gain

9:00 9:00 9:00 (12:00) 12:00

Again with the ‘Tele’, I hooked up the VOX ToneLab ST. It has an output ‘character’ switch with
settings of Vox, F, M, and Line (should be self-explanatory); I chose ‘Vox’ as being the closest
match. I have 10 user presets programmed for the Tele that have proven to be highly effective
through a number of larger amps as well as direct to a PA. (The other 40 user presets are song-
specific for my Jazz/Pop duo using the Crafter SA and the JazzAmp 112/Tweetey.)

Up until this point, my assessment has been luke-warm: impressive for its size/weight, good but
not really great, satisfactory but not truly inspiring. But I’ve got to admit that putting the multi-
effects unit in front of it gave this thing quite a kick in the butt! It still doesn’t have any gut-
thumping bottom end, but it sounds much fuller, and the speaker doesn’t break up with the added
low-mid frequency information even at considerable volume. My combination of Octave
divider/doubler and Auto-wah (think of trying to do a solo version of, “Chameleon”) was not nearly
as gratifying as with a bigger amp, but the Lunchbox still handled it without complaining. So
here’s the problem: I don’t think I’d use it live without the ToneLab; it made that much of a
difference. That takes away from the extreme portability advantage to some extent, but the
ToneLab itself is quite diminutive at only 3.53 lbs. and travels in a small padded laptop bag, so
you’d still be travelling pretty light.
Real Life – Rock band rehearsal:
After yesterday’s trial with the ToneLab ST, it just didn’t seem fair to bring the Lunchbox without it.
I’ve been playing the Tele + ToneLab through an old Peavey Tube amp with 2-12’s present at the
rehearsal space instead of bringing my Cube 60 in recent weeks, so bringing the ToneLab with
the Lunchbox seemed like a fair comparison. With the Lunchbox safely encased in a smallish
canvas tote bag, it was still a single trip from car to basement rehearsal space.

My bandmates were all predictably astonished at how small and loud the Lunchbox was. Building
on the previous day’s successful experimentation, I quickly arrived at the following settings:

Ambiance Tone Volume Gain

9:00 9:00 2:00 12:00

This provided ample loudness for a typical small rehearsal room with drums, bass, keys/sax,
guitar, and mic’d vocals. I used the expression pedal on the ToneLab as a volume pedal and
frequently backed it off a bit as I didn’t need all the volume available at these settings except for
solos. Also, note that the amp’s Volume was at 2:00 – not yet maxed out.6

The consensus was unanimous. The sound and volume capability of the amp was good enough
to gig with – not great, but ‘good enough’. Everyone agreed that it was fine for rehearsals, and
could work efficiently and effectively as an emergency gig backup.7 I don’t know what else to say.
That’s been my impression all along.

An interesting observation: So as to maximize bass response I kept the amp on the floor. Since I
was now standing right in front of it as opposed to sitting across from it, the apparent tonal
balance (for the sound reaching my ears) changed somewhat, as one would expect. The high
end was softened at bit, and the bottom end seemed more pronounced though a bit less clear.
This change was actually an improvement from my vantage point. But I found myself wondering if
a foldout support integrated into the back panel to enable a tilt-back capability might not be a
really good idea for this diminutive box.

One last note: We rehearsed for about 3 hours with a 15-minute break in the middle, during which
I turned the amp off to let it cool down. I encountered no problems or noticeable changes in
performance during the overall session, though the back panel of the amp did feel noticeably
warm (but not hot) at the end.

Final Comments/Observations
The ZT Lunchbox is tremendously impressive for it size and weight; as far as I know, there’s
nothing else like it – only the old GK250ML comes close. I think it would be gig-able in many
situations – certainly as a very convenient emergency backup amp. I don’t think I’d generally want
to use it in performance without at least an EQ and a reverb or delay pedal, though. By itself the
small speaker, albeit impressive, seems to be the limiting factor. It’s certainly a great
practice/teaching amp, and its extreme portability with sufficient volume capability makes it a
convenient option for band rehearsals. It sounds good through headphones, so it would probably
direct-record well. Perhaps its most effective use as a performance tool might be as a spare head
to drive a substantial speaker cabinet while also providing a built-in monitor speaker as a bonus.
But here’s the real bottom line for me: neither of these are truly great sounding amps; they’re
great values. The Cube series has a versatile feature set and decent sound. The Lunchbox has
an incredible loudness to size/weight ratio and decent sound. Either one of those attribute pairs
may fit your needs. Me? I’ll pass. I think I’m just not satisfied with anything less than a 12-inch
speaker, and I want something with enough sonic flexibility to make external effects an option
rather than a necessity. But I’ll take a close look at and listen to the new ZT Club amp, which is
still 10 lbs. lighter than the Cube 60.
Photos

1
Additionally, I have previously owned a number of similar (in one way or another) amps:
 GK 250 ML
 Roland Micro Cube, Roland Cube 30
 VOX DA5, VOX DA10
 As well as Fender, Mesa, Rivera, and other tube amps
2
The Vagabond is strung with 12-54 80/20 bronze roundwounds;
the 3 regular electrics all have 11-48 nickel/steel roundwounds on them.
3
I never turn either channel volume past 12 O’clock, as the sound begins to become a bit strident
after that; if I need more volume (rarely), I run the speaker-emulated Lineout into the PA to boost
the level.
4
Note that both the Delay and Reverb settings indicated translate into ¼; I will attempt to
determine whether the Lunchbox’s ambiance control can create a rough approximation of the
sonic space that delay or reverb provides.
5
I use the Acoustic model on the Cube 60 with this guitar. There’s no way to do a direct
comparison with the ZT Lunchbox without introducing an outboard effect. So, I’ll just see if I can
get a pleasing tone that would be usable for teaching and holiday sing-alongs (which are the only
times I amplify this guitar anyway).
6
The Cube 60’s Volumes had previously been at 12 O’clock minus 2 or 3 ‘ticks’ in this
environment.
7
One could, of course, line-it-out into a PA or mic it as well, neither of which I tried.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX third post ends XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

John W's review (LPDeluxe), which took place over a period of about two weeks,
is next. Anyone who has read John's frequent posts on our forum knows that he
is discriminating, as amplifier user and amplifier critic. John has cycled through
several different amplifiers in the past six months as I recall.

The ZT Lunchbox is a small, attractive combo amp with simple, mostly self-explanatory
controls. The features have been covered elsewhere.

My evaluation of the ZT Lunchbox was colored by available musicians, other gear and
instruments, and the need to shoehorn the ensemble sessions into everyone’s schedule.

We used several guitars, a harmonica, and a couple of other amplifiers in order to

uncover the good and the bad of the little amplifier. These included a couple of Fender
amps (Jazzmaster Ultralight, an excellent-sounding solid state, and a Deluxe Reverb
reissue, a bright tube amp), a Gibson ES-335, an ES-340, an SG equipped with a Bigsby
vibrato, and a 1979 Martin EM-18, a rare solid-body electric with factory-installed
DiMarzio pickups. A Shure Green Bullet (520DX) harmonica mic was used for harp.

Both ensemble sessions took place in a friend’s large (four-car-garage size) outbuilding,
using his PA, with Vox guitar amplifier and Taylor acoustic-electric and set-neck Tele
guitars providing rhythm, supplemented by an Alesis SR-18 drum machine.

I began by plugging the SG into the Lunchbox in my living room. The amp had an
acceptable tone, which was rather bright with the SG, a naturally bright-sounding guitar. I
tried my Gibson ES-335, which has lower power pickups, compared to the SG, into the
amplifier, and it sounded recessed and uninvolving. I found that everything worked on
the amp, so I scheduled a session at the home of the friend mentioned above.

I carried the SG with me to the first session. I played lead with it plugged into the ZT
while my friend handled vocals and rhythm guitar.

I concentrated on dialing in a useable tone. With the SG, that required the tone control to
be adjusted to about 9 o’clock, the gain up about half way and the volume set to an
appropriate level considering the loudness of the other parts.

There was very little bottom end to the tone of the amp, which is not surprising given the
6.5” speaker in it. The tone was very well suited to our setup, with a penetrating voice
that spoke clearly – both Bigsby and wrist vibrato were easily distinguished over the
other guitar and drums, and my lead parts had a snap that I don’t always hear. Notes
popped out of the mix in a way that gave my lines urgency on the faster songs.

I briefly changed over to the Jazzmaster. It sounded much fuller, and gave nothing away
on volume (it’s rated at 250 watts RMS through a 12” speaker) but also cost several
multiples of the Lunchbox’s price.
We played a couple of CS&N songs before ending our session. The combination of
rolled-back tone on the neck pickup of the SG and lowered treble on the amp
approximated the “Gretsch White Falcon on the back pickup with the tone switch
engaged” sound that Stephen Stills achieved on the recordings: aggressive in the upper
mids, but with a rounded-off top end that kept the sound smooth.

In the several days between that session and the following one, I left the ZT set up in my
living room where I played it from time to time. I quickly stopped using the 335: it was
not the suitable guitar for this amplifier and I could never find the sweet spot among its
pickup/tone choices. Instead I tried various settings with the SG.

My strongest impression was that there was none of the harmonic complexity of the
Fender Deluxe Reverb. The “Ambience” feature did not add shimmer in the familiar,
Fender reverb way I was used to. If I were to use it in a solo setting, I would take along
my Line 6 Floor Pod Plus – which, incidentally, has about the same heft, and is larger
than the ZT – to color my sound and add reverb, delay and so on. As an aside, I didn’t
plug the Line 6 into the amp, so I can’t speak for how well they would have cohabited,
but the effects have worked well with the other amps I own.

The last session added another friend playing lead on the 340 and EM-18, who could
trade off with me on bass, which allowed me to play harmonica through the amp.

We started with me on a Fender Precision through a Mesa/Boogie Walkabout Scout, the

rhythm player using his Tele, and the third playing his Gibson into the Lunchbox.

To warm up, we ran through Honky Tonk Women in E. The lead parts, again, had an
appropriate snap and sass that cut through the fairly loud mix. We followed that with
Your Cheatin’ Heart and the little amp managed the twang that the song required.

Once we got into playing, the virtues of the ZT became apparent. It had a relatively
smooth sound that didn’t get tiring, and its signature presence meant that every lead
placed itself prominently in the song. The lack of reverb wasn’t limiting in any way, in
the context of a band (reverb tends to lend perceived distance and “smearing” of the
notes, the opposite of this amp’s strong suit). Our lead player was able to find a “jazz”
setting with this guitar, which sounded appropriate to that genre. We played Georgia on
my Mind in that mode, with muted treble on the bass, and the sound worked well. That
was the only song we did in that genre: the rest were country rockers, folk rockers, and
rockers.

The guitarist changed over to the Martin solid-body. At this point he remarked that the
ZT sounded “one-dimensional.” In fact, the sound lost some of the resonance it had with
the 340. We played a few more songs, without the emergence of any new characteristic.

The lead player then plugged the Martin into my Deluxe Reverb, and the contrast
between the ZT and the Fender was dramatic: the first was penetrating but with little
complexity; the latter, though bright, had a bloom and shimmer to the notes that would
make it my first choice in most venues.

With our limited time expiring, the lead player took over the bass, and I plugged my
harmonica mic into the Lunchbox for the final two songs, blues in E.

I rolled the treble all the way off on the amplifier, and lowered the volume slightly (the
Green Bullet has an omnidirectional pattern, and feeds back readily).

Again, the sound was present, on the bright side, and definitely did not have the mid-
range honk favored by Little Walter and other Chicago artists. Also again, the tone was
not tweakable, ranging from fairly bright to really bright. With that, we packed up for the
night – the rhythm player is an airline pilot, and had a 6:00 am flight the next day, from
an airport that’s an hour and a half away.

The ZT fills a specific niche: it’s an amplifier that is easily transported, takes up little
space, and produces a sound musically useful in the context of a band. Certainly, it is
loud enough to compete with the other instruments, and its voicing assures that it will be
heard. Portability is compromised by the need for outboard effects if it were used by a
solo guitarist. Conversely, a player who depends upon effects could easily tailor them to
fit this amplifier. I can imagine throwing this and some pedals into a back pack (but not
the Line 6, which has a larger footprint than the Lunchbox – this is true of most all-in-one
pedalboards) and bicycling to the gig.

It proved to be picky about which guitars it wanted to amplify. As noted, my 335 never
found its role, while the SG, 340 and EM-18 all produced good sounds. The harmonica
was not what the Lunchbox wanted: the sound, while not harsh, had too little of the lower
mids and too much of the mids and high mids and I suspect it would become annoying
after very many songs, and, at that, would not be the right amp for many styles of music.
More raucous blues suit it, but I wouldn’t use it for something slower and mellower.

It is also something of a Johnny One-Note. Here its strengths and weaknesses come to a
head. As part of an ensemble, it shines, but there are places it cannot go – those places
that require more bottom, warmth, and roundness with more swirl and shimmer than the
ZT can provide. The “Ambience” knob changes the voicing more than it adds
dimensionality. I can envision gigging with this amplifier as a lead guitarist, but I’ll bet I
would probably be wishing that I had brought along a Fender instead. The Deluxe
Reverb, as noted, provides a lot of personality; the Jazzmaster has a smoother tone and
offers more versatile EQ, along with weight roughly double that of the Lunchbox. The
ZT produces a more present tone than either Fender, which is not always what I want. Its
specific coloration dominates the material you play through it.

Balanced against this is the low cost of the amp. Note that the Fenders I cited sell for four
or five times the ZT’s street price. For the money, the player gets a powerful, easily
transported, unobtrusive box that will surprise a lot of people with its volume. It also fits
into a small space, which can be important on some of the crowded stages I have played
on, and can easily sit on top of a stool in lieu of an amp stand (something I always use
with my Fenders).

For my playing, the Lunchbox brings a couple of things to the table: it helps me sound
more aggressive when that’s called for, and I find myself reveling in its penetration into
the mix – no more masked or buried lead parts! The rapid attack of the notes aids in this.
Against that is the simple fact that I don’t feel it can produce what I think of as “my”
sound: rounder, warmer, and with more expression in each note. Oddly, I love playing
lead through this amp more than I love listening to someone else.

In sum, a player needs to audition this amp with the instrument he or she will be plugging
into it. Its idiosyncrasies demand that your playing suit the Lunchbox, rather than the
other way around. It loves complex playing, which it reproduces without complaint, but
does not do as well on slower material, where the tone is more exposed. I know players
who would love this amp and others who would not. But its individual combination of
strengths and weaknesses require that you listen to it before purchasing.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX fourth post ends XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

And finally, let's attempt to summarize the reviewers' opinions and some from
their band associates. (I haven't been a working musician in over a decade; my
personal subjective opinions aren't current and haven't been included.)

Volumetric efficiency of the LB (loudness/size/weight) is unique.

The LB universally and satisfactorily fulfills the "backup" amplifier function.

Many situations exist where the LB could be the main amplifier, as has
been described well by two of our professional colleagues.

External EQ is generally felt to be desirable when the internal speaker is

used.

External reverb or delay might be desirable for either internal or external

speaker configuration.

There were no complaints of overheating (see * note below).

Many different configurations - single "hum-bucking" pickup full size jazz

guitars to the ubiquitous single-coil Telecaster - can be accommodated,
some more successfully than others.

Perhaps the most notable observation came from the working musicians
who have been using the LB continuously. When asked if the amplifier
would be replaced with the same product if damaged or lost, both replied
 unequivocally. Another LB would be their immediate choice rather than
shopping around for a replacement product.

It is difficult to avoid modifying our conclusions with phrases such as "for its size"
or "outstanding in a small amplifier". Eliminating this type of description forces
the product to stand on its own, without qualifiers. That was the standard of
comparison used when performance parameters were measured (except for the
thermal qualification made in an earlier observation).

Having said that, the raison d'etre of the Lunchbox IS its small size and light
weight combined with high output power. So, shouldn't these qualifications be
stressed rather than avoided? One must determine that for oneself but
personally such hair-splitting wouldn't trouble me overlong. The amplifier is what
it is - designed to fill a specific market need with apparent success.

Given the overall very positive impression this amplifier made on our review
team, the evaluation of the ZT "Club" should be of great interest. That review will
formally begin this Monday, 8 March.

(* NOTE: As a matter of personal interest, I approximated the continuous RMS output power that
would cause a temperature rise in the rear panel similar to that described by the users. The
average integrated power level was about 25 watts RMS if applied continuously and indefinitely.

Don't misinterpret this casual (unsupported by measurement) information. I'm not suggesting that
the LB is limited to that output power level; I've already stated what I measured. I mention this
only because the observation may offer some insight regarding differences between RMS power
levels and duty-cycle-related power levels.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX end of series XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX