Which Bassman?

Luckie · #1 06-22-2010, 06:31 AM

I'm looking to get an old Fender Bassman head.
In looking around, I've found that the two heads which fit my needs/budget are the Bassman 100 and 135.

What are the differences (from a performance standpoint) in the heads?
I'm trying to get a traditional blues bass sound, but I'd also like to be able to change it up if needs be.
Thanks in advance!

Luckie · #2 06-22-2010, 08:58 AM

Anyone?

waleross · #3 06-22-2010, 09:07 AM

Old amps are old amps. I have a new Fender Bassman 300 and its killer and will be around a long time. Here is a link to the bass emporium they might be able to steer you in the right direction:

http://www.bassemporium.com/item.php?sku=M1096540
Its an add for a fender combo bass amp. I would ask them if they have any leads on what you are looking for.....

waveman · #4 06-22-2010, 09:11 AM

I don't know all the differences, etc, but I have a Super 100 that sounds great. And no, it's not for sale. However, I honestly don't use it too often, since it is big and kinda heavy, and sucks electricity like hell.

coreyfyfe · #5 06-22-2010, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckie

What are the differences (from a performance standpoint) in the heads?

About 35 watts. The pre-amp is the same AFAIK the difference is the output transformer which was supposed to allow more output. My drummer has a 72 bassman 100 and it gets fairly loud with a good cab, a decent head. Almost impossible to get the thing to breakup, which is probably good for bass situations. My old bassman 70 ran out of gas for the one gig I did with it.

johnk_10 · #6 06-22-2010, 09:47 AM

IIRC, the main difference between the 100 & 135 is in the power transformers and the rectifier circuit. the 100's PS is designed the same way as the older twin reverb/dual showmans with a half wave rectifier, whereas the 135 uses a different tranny and a full wave rectifier. they are very simialr sounding amps, but i prefer the 100 over the 135 which sounds just a bit more sterile and brighter to me (same with the 100 watt twin reverbs vs. the 135 watt ones).

JTE · #7 06-22-2010, 10:26 AM

Yep, when Fender upped the power on their tube amps (Twin, Dual Showman, Vibrosonic, Quad, Super Six, Bassman 100, and PA 100) from 100 to 135 watts, it was primarily the "ultra-linear" output transformer and the rectifier. That 35 watt increase is pretty meaningless in audio output. It seems they only did it to compete with Music Man's 130 watt series of amps, and it's asking a lot out of four 6L6 tubes.

Most folks find the 135 watt UL series to be kind of sterile and harsh sounding, but it's pretty subjective, especially for bass. I know most fans of Twin Reverbs don't like the 135 watt ones.

John

okcrum · #8 06-22-2010, 10:48 AM

Is the 135 one of those amps people like to drop 4 6550s into?

dbg12345 · #9 06-22-2010, 10:53 AM

I actually just bought the bassman 100 off ebay i should get it later this week or early next week I'm pumped about it because it seems like a great amp and it is small and portable which is perfect for my needs (college student). For the price range (It seems as though you have the same one I did) I think the bassman 100 is the best which is why I bought it. Once I get it I'll let you know what I think of it though.

perogato02 · #10 06-22-2010, 10:59 AM

I have a '69 Bassman Export (50 watts) that I use for home practice ... for which it is actually too loud. But I don't think it would coop in a band situation.

BassmanPaul · #11 06-22-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnk_10

IIRC, the main difference between the 100 & 135 is in the power transformers and the rectifier circuit. the 100's PS is designed the same way as the older twin reverb/dual showmans with a half wave rectifier, whereas the 135 uses a different tranny and a full wave rectifier. they are very simialr sounding amps, but i prefer the 100 over the 135 which sounds just a bit more sterile and brighter to me (same with the 100 watt twin reverbs vs. the 135 watt ones).

Pretty much all the Bassman amps had full wave rectification using a centre tapped high voltage secondary and three series connected silicon rectifiers on each end. The 135, IIRC, used a full wave bridge rectification with a single HV winding.

Paul

mrnasty · #12 06-22-2010, 01:34 PM

My first few good bass amps were Fenders ... first was a 1965 Bassman (50 watts and 2 x 12 cabinet) which was very underpowered unless it was supported through a sound system. After that I used a Bassman 100 (100 watts and a 4 x 12 cabinet). While the cabinet was HUGE the amp had plenty of headroom and sounded good (but I was playing mainly jazz and had the treble turned way up so the band could hear my pitch). I don't see how you can go wrong with either the 100 or 135 head, as long as they are in good working condition and the price is right. BTW I've started using an early 1970s Ampeg B-15 Portaflex and this amp has THE blues sound.

pfschim · #13 06-22-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnasty

BTW I've started using an early 1970s Ampeg B-15 Portaflex and this amp has THE blues sound.

yes, it has the tone, but only about 27 watts. So, while it does have an iconic sound for bass (and a very good one at that), it is very underpowered and HEAVY for a regular gigging amp.

the OP will probably have much better luck with the 75-90 real watts that the Fenders he is looking at put out

lets see how long it takes JimmyM to pick up this post and reply in typical style

mulchor · #14 06-22-2010, 10:11 PM

I play a Bassman Ten, which is like the silverface Bassman in 4x10 combo form (except mine's not in 4x10 form anymore).

It sounds decent for bass, but it's really a gu***r amp that you can play bass thru. I guess I actually really like its sound, and certainly good for blues, but I think there's really good reason that other amps (not the Bassman) became iconic of the various eras for bass.

will33 · #15 06-22-2010, 10:53 PM

I have a 135. I only got to compare it to a 100 years ago, memory's a little foggy but I remember there wasn't much difference between the two. The 135 claims to be 135 watts. I was always under the impression that 120 watts is about all that could be expected from 4 - 6L6's but it allegedly has something to do with the transformer. The 2 were so close that I'd put more weight into which one is in better shape, had the most recent service, etc. instead of the extra 15-30 watts. That won't make much difference when it comes to bass anyway. I love their tone but they are a little weak when it comes to getting lowend at gig volume unless you've got a lot of speakers.....412, 610, 810 etc. They can cut the mustard with a 410 or 212 if you're doing smaller bar gigs that involve blues, country, old standards, etc.

JimmyM · #16 06-22-2010, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfschim

yes, it has the tone, but only about 27 watts. So, while it does have an iconic sound for bass (and a very good one at that), it is very underpowered and HEAVY for a regular gigging amp.

the OP will probably have much better luck with the 75-90 real watts that the Fenders he is looking at put out

lets see how long it takes JimmyM to pick up this post and reply in typical style

8 1/2 hours...i'm slipping

well after sharing amps with a bunch of bassists over the last year, i have come to the conclusion that i'm the quietest bassist in history. therefore, i'm not to be trusted