| Ampeg Portaflex Experiences
Sign in to disble this ad
I'm on the hunt for a new "micro" system - lightweight is my main priority, but of course that won't be at the sacrifice of tone. I'm a long time SWR user (most recently a pre-Fender Redhead for the past 17 years), and always liked the sound I got from various pieces of their gear.
Today I went down and tried out an Ampeg PF350. The store did not have a PF500 available to try. However, they did have the 2x10 and the 1x15 cabinets, so I was able to test them each out. After reading reviews and the like on TB, I was looking forward to testing out this gear as their price point seems impressive, as does the sound quality people are reporting. I should note that I've recently been able to try out amps and cabs from Genz-Benz, Traynor, SWR, and TC Electronics. Prior to going into today's test, I've been really impressed with the GB and Traynor gear, and reasonably impressed (i.e. no major complaints, but no huge love) with the SWR (Headlite/Golight) and TC Electronic gear.
Cabinets first - I enjoyed the 2x10 Portaflex cab. Nice tight bottom end, and decent voice in the mids. The top end seemed edgy and harsh, but in retrospect I probably could have adjusted the tweeter level on the cabinet to get better control over that. Overall, for $399 and 40-ish lbs, this is a cabinet I could probably buy and be happy with, especially for for the price. The 1x15 Portaflex was a different story. No matter what I did, I couldn't coax a decent tone from this cabinet. Regardless of the settings on the amp or the bass (and I tried about 4 different basses with it), I couldn't get anything but a muddy tone that lacked definition. Regardless of price or weight, I wouldn't buy this cabinet. I'll add as a caveat I've played through 2x10 and 4x10 cabinets for the past 20+ years, so maybe 15s just aren't my thing.
Now the amp - I spent about an hour trying many basses (as mentioned above) with the head, but no matter what I did or what adjustments I tried, I couldn't get a sound that I liked out of it. The highs were either overly harsh or completely absent. The mid control seemed to do very little, whether I was cutting or boosting. The bottom end was lacking definition, although I suppose it could be described as warm when boosted signifcantly (i.e. past about 3 o'clock). However, whenever I would warm up the bottom end, the mids and highs would get slushy. Then when I boosted the mids and highs, the bottom end would drop off, and also there was no sweetness, especially with the highs - it was always harsh and edgy. As the reviews I read suggested, I tried to bring the gain up to a point of near-clipping in and effort to get a decent tone, but I can't say that I liked how it sounded as it was breaking up - there was nothing warm, tubey, or pleasant about it. If I had to use this amp, I'd definitely stay in the cleaner, lower gain ranges. On the positive side, there was lots of volume to be had, even with a single cabinet, and I did enjoy the aesthetics and overall look of the gear (especially the cabinets) as well as the practicality of the Portaflex system.
I wonder if the PF500 preamp is appreciably different than the PF350. I'm not someone who has used much compression in the past, so I don't know if that would make a difference or not, but perhaps the more adjustable midrange controls would help. Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated.
My conclusion from today's test was to go back to GB and SWR to find an amp that works for me, but to be open to the 2x10 Ampeg cabinet, especially for the price. As well priced, lightweight, and convenient as the PF350 is, I wouldn't get one, and unless the PF500 is dramatically different, it wouldn't be a fit for me either.
Of course, YMMV, and the whole review is IMHO.
Last edited by blindrabbit : 07-04-2011 at 01:10 AM.
| 
