USA SVT-CL vs. new SVT-VR

criswell · #1 06-28-2010, 12:53 AM

I have an opportunity to pick up a new SVT-VR on the cheap. Just wanted to hear thoughts on how this stacks up against an early 90s SVT-CL and what would be the better amp? Opinions?

Myth_103 · #2 06-28-2010, 01:09 AM

I prefer the VR. It sounds altogether better to my ears. The CL just sounds "woofy" to me or something.

JimmyM · #3 06-28-2010, 01:22 AM

I love them both, but if I'm given the choice between the two, i will always take the vr. cl's great and sounds pretty much like the vr, but the vr feels a little more "open" and less constricted sounding. not by much, but enough to where i'd rather have a vr. plus it has two channels, which is fantastic if you like to blend effects with clean sounds.

johnk_10 · #4 06-28-2010, 01:40 AM

IMO, they're both good amps, but of the two, i prefer the VR. IME, CL's are nice, but a little 'cloudy' sounding.

Alex1984 · #5 06-28-2010, 01:58 AM

Has the non-master volume of the VR ever bothered any of you guys? Also, since we're talking all tube SVTs, how does the SVT-2 Pro compare to these 2?

JimmyM · #6 06-28-2010, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex1984

Has the non-master volume of the VR ever bothered any of you guys? Also, since we're talking all tube SVTs, how does the SVT-2 Pro compare to these 2?

no master volume bothers me not at all. not even a little. i'm not a fan of the preamp distortion when you crank the gain. if you are, however, get the cl. and to me, the 2 pro sounds pretty much like a cl.

rodl2005 · #7 06-28-2010, 03:05 AM

Older SVTII (non-pro) models are DAARN good too!!!! Non-master vol. too

johnk_10 · #8 06-28-2010, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex1984

Has the non-master volume of the VR ever bothered any of you guys?

nope. and it never bothered me on my vintage SVT either.

Surly · #9 06-28-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyM

plus it has two channels, which is fantastic if you like to blend effects with clean sounds.

By connecting channels 1 and 2?

JimmyM · #10 06-28-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surly

By connecting channels 1 and 2?

or splitting your signal and running one to each.

criswell · #11 06-28-2010, 01:22 PM

Aside from the differences in tone...how about the craftsmanship? Aren't the VR's made overseas? Any issues with reliability...not that there weren't issues with the ones made here.

Tim1 · #12 06-28-2010, 01:32 PM

As I have posted many times, I have a Vietnam made VR. It has been used and travelled regularly for the past 18 months and has behaved faultlessly. Yes, there were some early problems but there are many very happy owners on this forum.

johnk_10 · #13 06-28-2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim1

As I have posted many times, I have a Vietnam made VR. It has been used and travelled regularly for the past 18 months and has behaved faultlessly. Yes, there were some early problems but there are many very happy owners on this forum.

DITTO!
mine's an '07 vietnamese one too, and it sounds just like my '69

JimmyM · #14 06-28-2010, 04:24 PM

an svt is an svt is an svt as far as i'm concerned, and the only differences to me are master and non-master. cabs are a different story, but i think loud actually makes better cabs than slm did, especially from like 2000-2005 when they used chipboard and really dark sounding speakers.

derridiandrift · #15 06-28-2010, 04:25 PM

I love both the CL and the VR but they're very different sounding amps. It's already been said above... the VR sounds alot like the old SVTs from the 70s. The CL has a voice of its own.

Offshore VR: I had one from Vietnam, built in 2009, and it went back. Very noisy. The local service place did something to it and they caused a new problem. The second offshore VR (China, I think) wouldn't come out of standby in the store. Now I own US built VR and I'm very pleased so far. I loaded it with Winged C 6550 tubes and Tung Sol 12AX7s. Vast improvement over the Sovtek tubes that were in it.

I'm glad to hear that some of the offshore VRs work well. My experience was very frustrating and hopefully an anomaly.

EDIT: by the way, some of the "woofyness" in the CL that was mentioned previously can be cleaned up by using the tubes I mentioned above.

SactoBass · #16 06-28-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by criswell

I have an opportunity to pick up a new SVT-VR on the cheap. Just wanted to hear thoughts on how this stacks up against an early 90s SVT-CL and what would be the better amp? Opinions?

I had an SVT-CL about 10 years ago. I ended up selling it because it sounded kinda cloudy or woofy (as described in previous posts). I wasn't all that impressed with it. I played it through an 8x10 cab of the same year.

I have never played through an SVT-VR so I don't have any useful info to offer on that.

JimmyM · #17 06-28-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SactoBass

I had an SVT-CL about 10 years ago. I ended up selling it because it sounded kinda cloudy or woofy (as described in previous posts). I wasn't all that impressed with it. I played it through an 8x10 cab of the same year.

that was the big problem with your rig right there, provided the cab was one made with osb and those dark sounding eminence speakers (2000-2005 is my best guess as to when the bad period was). if you get a newer cab or an older cab, it's not nearly as cloudy. however, there is a tiny bit of cloudiness that you don't get with the vr. but not nearly as drastic as when you plug into one of those bad cabs.