I'm falling in love with my Acoustic B200H

[thedudebrah]

I've been having some issues with my SVT-VR recently and I've been using my Acoustic head as a backup through my 810 cab at band practice. This thing has been sounding EXCELLENT with a Pbass. Nice and fat low end and mids and highs that cut through without being harsh. I've had it cranked and it barely ever clips.

For the longest time I was unhappy with it as a backup rig, but I had been playing it through a junk Legion Sound 410 cab. I'm really starting to like it enough to possibly start gigging with it when I don't feel like carrying my SVT. Just had to share my enthusiasm.

[Tuned]

I bet a big factor is you're not slamming your SVT. They can be a little fluffy when not cranked. You should try putting some sort of volume control, even a pedal for starters, between the preamp out and poweramp in, so you can at least slam the preamp at lower levels. I use an SVP-CL (same preamp as SVT) and by far its best tone is just before distortion. If you like how it works you can make/buy a less invasive volume control.

The B200H will sound pretty much the same from 25W-200W, and they're a very nice sounding amp, but no way it's a contender with a slammed SVT.

[thedudebrah]

If I dimed my SVT I'd blow my band away lol. I'm using both channels on it at the same time and they each have a volume control. In a live show setting I get them both up to like 11:00.

I'd never ever abandon my love for this SVT, but this acoustic head is really surprising me recently. Plus, I'm getting over back surgery, so carrying a 95lb SVT isn't really the best thing for me right now lol

[Tuned]

Each channel has an input gain control, there is no master volume. In order to slam the preamp you need a master volume to lower the preamp output after it's done its happy stuff at a high level. Won't make it lighter though, hope your back improves.

[atomicdog]

Is this one of the newly revamped B200H? I returned one last year because the fan was too noisy, but I wanted to like it so bad (big bang for the bucks). The cab was noisy as well (sealed, more of less, but leaky). I have an Acoustic B20 combo that is a tone monster. I love the little thang.

[jj4001]

I'd love to get my hands on a B200H but my vintage 320 and 370 keep me from spending any more money on amps. A friend of mine uses the B200 as his main amp and sometimes I'm blown away by how good it sounds through his crappy 4x10 cab. I use a 260 mini stack with a 4 Ohm 10" Eminence Legend in the cab for a practice/coffeehouse gig amp. Love it as a bedroom practice amp. Hate it on the low volume coffeehouse type gigs. The amp is great, but the cab is voiced so deep its hard boost mids and treble enough while cutting the bass enough to make it sound good with a band. I used the 100 watt 260 head through an Ampeg 8x10 on a rehearsal once and it did sound totally awesome, though.

[RadioactiveGuy4]

I have been using my b200h a lot as of late and and i think it sounds great. Lots of EQ knobs.

[skunky33]

If that's all the power you need go for it, why not?

[skunky33]

I have a 100 watt acoustic combo that sounds classic. They're super warm. The gain sucks but I don't use it. Not powerful enough to gig with but fun to mess around on. The only thing I would worry about id if you're pushing that bastard so much, so often what's the life span?

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Tuned

I bet a big factor is you're not slamming your SVT. They can be a little fluffy when not cranked. You should try putting some sort of volume control, even a pedal for starters, between the preamp out and poweramp in, so you can at least slam the preamp at lower levels. I use an SVP-CL (same preamp as SVT) and by far its best tone is just before distortion. If you like how it works you can make/buy a less invasive volume control.

The B200H will sound pretty much the same from 25W-200W, and they're a very nice sounding amp, but no way it's a contender with a slammed SVT.

Sorry Tuned, but none of this is true. I never play with a slammed SVT and never have in my 35 years of using them and other tube amps, nor have I added a master volume to my non-master SVT's, and it always sounds 100% great with zero fluffiness. And respect to the Acoustic head, but if you can't tell the difference between a clean SVT and a clean B200h, I would suggest getting a hearing check.

That said, it's entirely possible that our OP can like the sound of the B200h. Nothing wrong with that.

[Tuned]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Sorry Tuned, but none of this is true. I never play with a slammed SVT and never have in my 35 years of using them and other tube amps, nor have I added a master volume to my non-master SVT's, and it always sounds 100% great with zero fluffiness. And respect to the Acoustic head, but if you can't tell the difference between a clean SVT and a clean B200h, I would suggest getting a hearing check.

That said, it's entirely possible that our OP can like the sound of the B200h. Nothing wrong with that.

So you've never slammed any tube amp, but you can attest that it can't get any better than running at lower levels? The fact that tube amps sound better cranked is quite universally recognized. I slam my SVP-CL every gig, and can definitively attest to its tone benefits regardless of overall volume. The SVT, like most tube amps, sounds cleanest just before it breaks up. That's where the harmonics shine the most.

And I said the B200H would sound the same at 25W as it would at 200W, didn't say it sounded anything like an SVT. Similarly my IPR sounds the same at 25W as it does at 1600W. Why? Because they're NOT TUBE AMPS, which change significantly at different levels.

If you are unwilling to try it, how can we take your word for it?

[shoot-r]

Last Sunday went to my nearest G.C. to audition a Sterling Ray 34 bass.
Grabbed the bass off the wall and the only bass amp that had a cord plugged into it was one of the newest G.C. Acoustic 300 watt heads (B300).
It was run through the newest style of the G.C. Acoustic 410 cabinet and their new bottom ported 115 cabinet.
All I can say is it sounded very, very.......very good there in the store!!!



I liked the Sterling too!!!!!!!

[thedudebrah]

Originally Posted by Tuned

So you've never slammed any tube amp, but you can attest that it can't get any better than running at lower levels? The fact that tube amps sound better cranked is quite universally recognized. I slam my SVP-CL every gig, and can definitively attest to its tone benefits regardless of overall volume. The SVT, like most tube amps, sounds cleanest just before it breaks up. That's where the harmonics shine the most.

And I said the B200H would sound the same at 25W as it would at 200W, didn't say it sounded anything like an SVT. Similarly my IPR sounds the same at 25W as it does at 1600W. Why? Because they're NOT TUBE AMPS, which change significantly at different levels.

If you are unwilling to try it, how can we take your word for it?

What are you trying to prove? I love my SVT and I love my acoustic as a backup.

[Doner Designs]

A lot of bang for the buck with Acoustic. I keep a B100 in a secondary practice area and in some ways like it better than my Markbass rig (I should have gone with 15's instead of 12's on the MB).

The notch filter is really helpful in my basement - it enables me to dial out/down the frequency that makes the ductwork resonate like crazy.

[thedudebrah]

Originally Posted by shoot-r

Last Sunday went to my nearest G.C. to audition a Sterling Ray 34 bass.
Grabbed the bass off the wall and the only bass amp that had a cord plugged into it was one of the newest G.C. Acoustic 300 watt heads (B300).
It was run through the newest style of the G.C. Acoustic 410 cabinet and their new bottom ported 115 cabinet.
All I can say is it sounded very, very.......very good there in the store!!!



I liked the Sterling too!!!!!!!

I originally had the 115 and I thought it sounded a little muffled and I couldn't get enough high end clarity for my ears. I was thinking about picking up the matched 410 for it though because the price is pretty damn good for just a back up jam rig.

[Doner Designs]

Squier + Acoustic = 80% of the tone for 20% of the dollars (IMO, of course).

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Tuned

So you've never slammed any tube amp, but you can attest that it can't get any better than running at lower levels? The fact that tube amps sound better cranked is quite universally recognized. I slam my SVP-CL every gig, and can definitively attest to its tone benefits regardless of overall volume. The SVT, like most tube amps, sounds cleanest just before it breaks up. That's where the harmonics shine the most.

And I said the B200H would sound the same at 25W as it would at 200W, didn't say it sounded anything like an SVT. Similarly my IPR sounds the same at 25W as it does at 1600W. Why? Because they're NOT TUBE AMPS, which change significantly at different levels.

If you are unwilling to try it, how can we take your word for it?

Who says I haven't tried it? I've been playing tube amps since 1978. Of course I've tried it. Many times. I just don't do it on gigs because I don't need that kind of volume. And while it does sound great to crank them, it's certainly not necessary. The ENTIRE reason the SVT was invented was to give bass players CLEAN tube tone at higher volumes than previous tube bass amps. The idea that tube amps are only good for cranking started in the 90's with grunge. Before that, not so much. You had your crankers and you had your clean tube amp fans as well.

I am always amused how you present your opinions as clear and incontrovertible facts. It's as if you're totally thrown for a loop when anyone thinks differently. Keep it up because it's funny and creates thread material, but sometimes we have to realize that our own personal experiences are not necessarily the be-all and end-all for everyone.

BTW, don't confuse a tube preamp with a tube amp. Ampeg tube preamps do sound better when you run them close to the distortion point, but they ain't a tube amp.

[shoot-r]

Originally Posted by thedudebrah

I originally had the 115 and I thought it sounded a little muffled and I couldn't get enough high end clarity for my ears. I was thinking about picking up the matched 410 for it though because the price is pretty damn good for just a back up jam rig.

The 410 and 115 G.C. Acoustic cabinets I played through last Sunday were "just released" and made available.

I think the 410 is a sealed cabinet design, as was their older 410 design, it just has up-graded cosmetics.

The 115 cabinet is different from what was offered in G.C. Acoustic's line-up.
The newly designed 115 has a bottom, front, shelf ported design.

I don't know if they up-graded the Eminence of China drivers that are in them or not.

[thedudebrah]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Who says I haven't tried it? I've been playing tube amps since 1978. Of course I've tried it. Many times. I just don't do it on gigs because I don't need that kind of volume. And while it does sound great to crank them, it's certainly not necessary. The ENTIRE reason the SVT was invented was to give bass players CLEAN tube tone at higher volumes than previous tube bass amps. The idea that tube amps are only good for cranking started in the 90's with grunge. Before that, not so much. You had your crankers and you had your clean tube amp fans as well.

I am always amused how you present your opinions as clear and incontrovertible facts. It's as if you're totally thrown for a loop when anyone thinks differently. Keep it up because it's funny and creates thread material, but sometimes we have to realize that our own personal experiences are not necessarily the be-all and end-all for everyone.

BTW, don't confuse a tube preamp with a tube amp. Ampeg tube preamps do sound better when you run them close to the distortion point, but they ain't a tube amp.

This.

Originally Posted by shoot-r

The 410 and 115 G.C. Acoustic cabinets I played through last Sunday were "just released" and made available.

I think the 410 is a sealed cabinet design, as was their older 410 design, it just has up-graded cosmetics.

The 115 cabinet is different from what was offered in G.C. Acoustic's line-up.
The newly designed 115 has a bottom, front, shelf ported design.

I don't know if they up-graded the Eminence of China drivers that are in them or not.

The one I had wasn't bottom ported, but it did have a tweeter or horn or whatever that I always turned off. It was really "boomy" to my ears. I haven't gone in-store yet, I was just online shopping and I saw the sealed 410 for 150 bucks (I think?). I'm gonna have to go in and try it out.

[shoot-r]

The one I had wasn't bottom ported, but it did have a tweeter or horn or whatever that I always turned off. It was really "boomy" to my ears. I haven't gone in-store yet, I was just online shopping and I saw the sealed 410 for 150 bucks (I think?). I'm gonna have to go in and try it out.[/quote]

I'll probably have this worded wrong, but I'll try...(BillF...Help!)

Cabs with horns and drivers have a crossover between the two.
By design, the driver won't go as high as a full range driver because the cabinet has a horn in it to cover those highs.
When you turn off the horn you lose those highs but you are still getting a filtered sound from the crossover plus the drivers limited high's range.
That maybe where the boomy/muddy sound was coming from.

I gig with Avatar Neo 210 cabinets.
If I turn the horn's completely off, (to my ears ), the sound becomes muddy and undefined.
My horn's are always slightly on.