Acoustic 220? or Peavey Mark III?

[Lemming16]

Edit: Discarded Peavey Mark III, and added RBA-500

Hi guys.

I just saw on a pawnshop here in Mexico (Where new amp prices are ridiculously high, total ripoff), an Acoustic 220 Bass Head, it was $110 USD.

Like this one

I'm also being offered for $150, a Randall RBA-500 Es, which is 300 RMS on two different channels i think.
He says for $320, i can take the Randall RBA-500 Es with a 2x15 cab with Randall Jaguars.
It's exactly this one.




Which one do you think it would be better? in terms of sound and value? I would use it with an Aria Pro II TSB-550.
I am just starting. Also, what kind of cab do you recommend using these heads with? Thanks.

P.S: Do you guys think the Acoustic 220 would give me enough volume for a gig?

P.S2: I am planning on using it with a POD X3 (It has pretty good bass amps)

[StereoPlayer]

I had the Peavey ...like forever.....it never quit me!...still have it. You can get one cheaper tho. Acoustic stuff has mojo....alway liked them too. Peavey for me.
Any cab has alway worked with the Peavey. Some are better tho.

[bolt_thrower]

Go for the Acoustic!

[KramerBassFan]

Get the Acoustic.

[St Drogo]

No experience with the acoustic, but I own a peavey mark III and it is completely tits. It's indestructible and has quite some balls soundwise. It is kinda heavy, but that comes with the territory. I love it, and would recommend it to anyone. At that price though? Not sure, especially since I've no idea about the acoustic...

EDIT: Just to clarify: "tits" is a good thing.

[Lemming16]

Thanks guys, it seems i'm getting the acoustic then. Is there a reason of why you recommend the acoustic?

[BigOldHarry]

Urrr.... $110... I'd try to hold out for a used GK400RB for a few $$ more...

However... The Acoustic will get you "Respect", while the Peavy will sound better.

Which one is more important to you?

[garmenteros]

I owned the peavy mark III and it was a very good versatile head. 220 seems a bit high for it... I own an acoustic 150b and have owned a 370 and they are also built very well and just sound better to my ears... I'd go for the acoustic... keep in mind they are boomy low mid oriented amps...

[Lemming16]

Thanks a lot garmenteros, do you think its gonna sound good with Pod X3 bass amp?

I just dont know if it has a loop input, so i can use it only as power amp.
I remember on the back of the amp, in/outs saying "Power Input" and "Preamp out".

[Lemming16]

Do you guys think this would make a good match with a Gallien Krueger 210BLXII? Or would it be better a 115MBX. the thing is ...the acoustic says "2 and 4 ohms" and these cabs say they are 8 ohms. honestly, i dont understand this whole "ohms" thing.

[Bassdude404]

Originally Posted by St Drogo

EDIT: Just to clarify: "tits" is a good thing.

Honestly.....Has "tits" ever been a bad thing!?!?!?....

[Lemming16]

Originally Posted by Bassdude404

Honestly.....Has "tits" ever been a bad thing!?!?!?....

They do if they're man tits

[mccartneyman]

Acoustic all the way. I used the old 450 head for years, r=then the Peavey Mark III. It never approached the Acoustic for good sound.

[Bassdude404]

Originally Posted by Lemming16

They do if they're man tits

Good point, hadn't thought about that...Thanks for that mental image....

[Lemming16]

EDIT!, New info!

[KramerBassFan]

Get the Randall.

[Lemming16]

Really? Do you think it would do better than the Acoustic 220?

[KramerBassFan]

Yep, IIRC, it has more power.

[garmenteros]

I used my acoustic today with my pedalboard, and it really took a liking to my ehx bass muff... I wouldnt know how it would work with a pod but with enough tweaking it will probably just work out fine...

[Lemming16]

Great!, i hope its not a big difference between an analog one and a digital one. I appreciate everyone's replys, they're been a big help.