Traynor YBA200 vs Ampeg SVT-3PRO

mazdah · #1 10-17-2011, 03:21 PM

First: the background. I love the oldschool motown and stax sound. I have two P-basses strung with flats - Us Vintage '62 with labella and '11 60th Anniversary with Fender 9050's (old ones). Ampeg was always my "to go" sound and currently I have SVT-3PRO and I'm being very happy with the soud I get with 810E and 410HLF, not so much with 15E which I use now...

But the all-tube GAS is strong and there is an oportunity to buy YBA200-2 (4xKT88) for the same money I could get selling my 3pro (or even cheaper). Which one would you prefer for dirty, oldschool precision sound? Should I stick with Ampeg (I never got bad sound from Ampeg amp, even the cheapest ones sounds great for me) or should I try all-tube?

VT/Sansamp pedal is not an option. I just can't get smooth sound from them, I like natural, organic and full of low mids sound of amp.

The power and volume does not matter. I play fairly quiet with my band.

Marton · #2 10-17-2011, 03:26 PM

I had both, and in my opinion the Traynor was better. But it's not really voiced "clean". If you want a little bit of dirt in your tone that's perfect, but otherwise it's probably not the best head for you.

And by the way, this head sound about 10 times better with a 12AU7 or 12AT7 in the first preamp plug.

beyondthe48 · #3 10-17-2011, 03:34 PM

i really hated the svt 3, heard great things about the traynor though

nicoli · #4 10-17-2011, 03:46 PM

IME, the Traynor's have more balls and vintage tubey fat warmth than the SVT3 can dream of coming close to.

rodl2005 · #5 10-17-2011, 05:21 PM

I've had both. If I had a chance to buy either again- YBA200 hands down.
I play motown/soul/funk & the Traynor does it beautifully. & sure, if U need more clean headroom - throw a 12AU7 or even an AT7 in the V1 pos.
I did that, but as I didn't NEED the extra clean headroom, swapped it back to the AX7, so I was able to dial in the grind easily.
IMO- it's far more versatile than the 3PRO, just as loud & just sounds better with them there toobs :-)

mazdah · #6 10-17-2011, 05:34 PM

No need for clean headroom, I love grindy tubes.
I've read some opinions here, that Traynors are very bright sounding - is this true? I prefer darker sound.

Alex1984 · #7 10-17-2011, 05:48 PM

Sorry, didn't like the 3 Pro. The Traynor sounds great, but can be a bit dirty, also remember the passive (cut-only) mid control. It doesn't seem to have too much mids, but it was enough.

rodl2005 · #8 10-17-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazdah

No need for clean headroom, I love grindy tubes.
I've read some opinions here, that Traynors are very bright sounding - is this true? I prefer darker sound.

Can be, but, like any quality amp, you can pretty easily dial that out (or I could).
I don't think it will do a hugely dark/monstrous bottom end thing, but, as I said, it worked fine for ALL the stuff I played with it.
Range from- early Miracles to Stax to 70's funk

johnk_10 · #9 10-17-2011, 06:53 PM

i prefer the YBA200 over the SVT3 too, and i don't find them to be too bright at all.

TomB · #10 10-17-2011, 07:31 PM

Never been an SVT3 fan but have had a lot of fun w/Traynors of various size in backlines & rehearsals. They don't tend to have a wide EQ range IME, but they have a great basic tone and I've never had a problem finding a sound I liked. That's how I'd go.

Gizmot · #11 10-17-2011, 07:54 PM

Give me the Traynor - it's an east call.

bassboysam · #12 10-17-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex1984

Sorry, didn't like the 3 Pro. The Traynor sounds great, but can be a bit dirty, also remember the passive (cut-only) mid control. It doesn't seem to have too much mids, but it was enough.

I'm pretty sure the entire EQ is passive and not just the mids.

pie_man_25 · #13 10-17-2011, 08:43 PM

my experience, like the many others that have posted, is that the traynor yba200 is definitely a quality head. Actually, I've had nothing but positive experiences from both heads - mind you I've only used both of them, I've never owned either of them.

4StringShooter · #14 10-17-2011, 10:14 PM

I had an old Bassmaster MK 1 with the " range expander ".

Here, you can just see the Amp, and the 6-10 Traynor I had on it.

http://i539.photobucket.com/albums/f...heavesPics.jpg

Alex1984 · #15 10-18-2011, 12:18 AM

I remember reading about it having a more Fender-like tone stack, and I do tend to dial in more mids on this head than I do my other heads. Yeah, EQ range isn't huge, but it was enough, you can go from a crisp, bright sound to a grindy, thick sound easily.

I think it's a great light-weight tube amp. The only real downfall I can see is probably in the volume department, especially clean volume. I did need to push it quite a bit to get enough volume, but the volume's definitely still there. With bigger cabs, this'd be less of a problem. On that note, it definitely takes a push really well, and sounds great doing it. Traynor tube amps in general seem to sound like they're working harder while the SVT is cruising along without breaking much of a sweat.

Also, if you do get it, make sure you use KT88s instead of 6550s.

Morning Beer · #16 10-18-2011, 07:45 AM

I haven't played the traynor, but I had the 3 pro for a few years. Worst head I've ever owned.

AngryJohnny · #17 10-18-2011, 08:31 AM

I used a YBA-200 for about 16-18 months. The eq was sensitive though it was naturally very, very bright and tended to get filthy (almost industrial) quick. The lack of headroom eventually turned out to be the downfall for me. I play in a heavier/alt rock band and it was too harsh for my tastes at live band volume. I think the STV 3 is ok but for slightly more (or even the same) used the STV 4 IMO is a better sounding amp despite being more weight.

GangstaBean · #18 10-29-2011, 08:22 PM

Are you able to also get a slap tone out of the Traynor?

96tbird · #19 10-29-2011, 08:33 PM

Wait. What? Slap was invented on tube amps.