2013 Ampeg V-4B 100W Reissue

[WretchedExcess]

IHey, there's no such thing as "6L6GC specs" or "7027a specs". Every company has its own specs. I will say that 7027A's and 6L6GC specs vary from around 30-35W dissipation. Both. If we're talking about power of course.

It sounds like you're familiar with tube marketing today, and totally unfamiliar with tube marketing and the trademark enforcement standards of the Golden Era. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you're a young whippersnapper, who learned about tubes on the internet, and not someone who had formal electronic engineering training during the tube era. (no offense intended).

6L6 was a Trademark belonging to RCA. In order to market any tube in the United States as a 6L6, the marketing company had to: a) prove that their tube met RCA's published quality/performance standards, and b) pay a royalty to RCA for licensing the 6L6 designation. Back in the day, you couldn't sell a tube as a 6L6 without RCA's permission. Back in the day, tubes bearing the 6L6GC designation were truly interchangable because RCA took extensive steps to insure that any tube bearing their trademarked model number would be the equivalent of RCA's own product and would perform with transparency when substituted for the OEM part.

Things are totally different today. RCA is out of the tube business and they've abandoned all enforcement of the 6L6 trademark. The result is that RCA is no longer enforcing quality control standards on any manufacturer who chooses to use the 6L6 designation. Today it's a free for all. Today anyone, anywhere, can claim that their tube is a 6L6, and they could be selling something that's nothing like a 6L6 in terms of quality, durability, or performance because there's nobody to beat them down if they sell something substandard. This problem went on for a long time when the Chinese and Russian tube manufacturers first started branding their non-equivalent tubes as 6L6 replacements, but things are getting better now.

I don't want this to evolve into a flamewar, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation and let you have the last word on the subject, with the following caveat:

It's always risky to tell someone on the internet how wrong they are, because you never know -- you may be talking to some old fart who designed tube electronics during the golden era, who may know more than you can possibly hope to learn by surfing forums on the web. Chances are that other person might know an awful lot about the subject. Personally, I'm not going to argue. Believe what you will, and good luck reading spec sheets, assuming that the tubes are equivalent, and substituting 6L6 for 7027.

 

[Tim1]

What a fabulous post.

 

[gurensan]

...but things are getting better now.

That's good to read. I hope it's more than just a little bit better since I'm about to restore an old Williamson that actually has RCA 6L6GCs in it.

 

[Buster Brown]

Well the lure of the V4B became too much to resist, and I've decided to buy one. I'm usually not an early adopter, but the guys at Ampeg have all said how much it sounds like the old ones and how it blows away the V4BH, and that was the original plan to get the V4B anyway till the Heritage lured me in.

I'll be damned if I let my wife get that horse, but I know it's going to cost me

Sold the 4Pro - Paid for the V4B already. Waiting for September to take delivery.

Now, where the hell do I get that new grill cloth!?!?!

 

[prd004]

It sounds like you're familiar with tube marketing today, and totally unfamiliar with tube marketing and the trademark enforcement standards of the Golden Era. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you're a young whippersnapper, who learned about tubes on the internet, and not someone who had formal electronic engineering training during the tube era. (no offense intended).

6L6 was a Trademark belonging to RCA. In order to market any tube in the United States as a 6L6, the marketing company had to: a) prove that their tube met RCA's published quality/performance standards, and b) pay a royalty to RCA for licensing the 6L6 designation. Back in the day, you couldn't sell a tube as a 6L6 without RCA's permission. Back in the day, tubes bearing the 6L6GC designation were truly interchangable because RCA took extensive steps to insure that any tube bearing their trademarked model number would be the equivalent of RCA's own product and would perform with transparency when substituted for the OEM part.

Things are totally different today. RCA is out of the tube business and they've abandoned all enforcement of the 6L6 trademark. The result is that RCA is no longer enforcing quality control standards on any manufacturer who chooses to use the 6L6 designation. Today it's a free for all. Today anyone, anywhere, can claim that their tube is a 6L6, and they could be selling something that's nothing like a 6L6 in terms of quality, durability, or performance because there's nobody to beat them down if they sell something substandard. This problem went on for a long time when the Chinese and Russian tube manufacturers first started branding their non-equivalent tubes as 6L6 replacements, but things are getting better now.

I don't want this to evolve into a flamewar, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation and let you have the last word on the subject, with the following caveat:

It's always risky to tell someone on the internet how wrong they are, because you never know -- you may be talking to some old fart who designed tube electronics during the golden era, who may know more than you can possibly hope to learn by surfing forums on the web. Chances are that other person might know an awful lot about the subject. Personally, I'm not going to argue. Believe what you will, and good luck reading spec sheets, assuming that the tubes are equivalent, and substituting 6L6 for 7027.

This is one of the greatest posts in talkbass history.

And I must have one of these amps!

 

[JimmyM]

Sold the 4Pro - Paid for the V4B already. Waiting for September to take delivery.

Now, where the hell do I get that new grill cloth!?!?!

LOL! I'm leaving the grillcloth as it is. Most of the time I think I'll be pairing it up with my two 210av's, unless what Scott said about it working better in a ported cab is actually true (matter of opinion, probably...I used my 73 V4B into a flatback back in the day). Was planning on re-doing the 210av's with Heritage cloth, and now I don't have to!

 

[Buster Brown]

LOL! I'm leaving the grillcloth as it is. Most of the time I think I'll be pairing it up with my two 210av's, unless what Scott said about it working better in a ported cab is actually true (matter of opinion, probably...I used my 73 V4B into a flatback back in the day). Was planning on re-doing the 210av's with Heritage cloth, and now I don't have to!

Yeah..I'm going to change my 610 grill cloth over to the VR grill cloth and use the V4B with the 610 and, of course, the Heritage will remain the same....

 

[JimmyM]

Nice! Hope you like it as much as I plan to

 

[B-string]

It sounds like you're familiar with tube marketing today, and totally unfamiliar with tube marketing and the trademark enforcement standards of the Golden Era. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you're a young whippersnapper, who learned about tubes on the internet, and not someone who had formal electronic engineering training during the tube era. (no offense intended).

6L6 was a Trademark belonging to RCA. In order to market any tube in the United States as a 6L6, the marketing company had to: a) prove that their tube met RCA's published quality/performance standards, and b) pay a royalty to RCA for licensing the 6L6 designation. Back in the day, you couldn't sell a tube as a 6L6 without RCA's permission. Back in the day, tubes bearing the 6L6GC designation were truly interchangable because RCA took extensive steps to insure that any tube bearing their trademarked model number would be the equivalent of RCA's own product and would perform with transparency when substituted for the OEM part.

Things are totally different today. RCA is out of the tube business and they've abandoned all enforcement of the 6L6 trademark. The result is that RCA is no longer enforcing quality control standards on any manufacturer who chooses to use the 6L6 designation. Today it's a free for all. Today anyone, anywhere, can claim that their tube is a 6L6, and they could be selling something that's nothing like a 6L6 in terms of quality, durability, or performance because there's nobody to beat them down if they sell something substandard. This problem went on for a long time when the Chinese and Russian tube manufacturers first started branding their non-equivalent tubes as 6L6 replacements, but things are getting better now.

I don't want this to evolve into a flamewar, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation and let you have the last word on the subject, with the following caveat:

It's always risky to tell someone on the internet how wrong they are, because you never know -- you may be talking to some old fart who designed tube electronics during the golden era, who may know more than you can possibly hope to learn by surfing forums on the web. Chances are that other person might know an awful lot about the subject. Personally, I'm not going to argue. Believe what you will, and good luck reading spec sheets, assuming that the tubes are equivalent, and substituting 6L6 for 7027.

Hi there old timer (I am one also ). Good post except, maybe to prevent muddying the waters, the original 6L6 was a metal tube. Older than you or me timers used to cover them with a tin can filled with water so they could drive them harder. Then came the 6L6G (coke bottle) with the release of the 6L6GC (couple variants still in there) being the last revision. And yes as you guessed I checked specs in my RCA Receiving Tube manual on my earlier post.

 

[MrCool84]

Gettin back to dredge work next week... IOEU local 25 on the dredge Texas. Let the fat checks roll in I've got a 100t as well with the 610 neo. Now what ampeg cab to pair it with....... Guess ill wait for some reviews on the new 212.... Or my original plan, before a 2 month(very welcomed lay off, NV115 stack! And of course a direct A/b will be In order for anyone on the fence. Also just remembering "Jt knows" experience a couple weeks back with a SVT at guitar center I might have to go with that beast nothing worse in life them decision makin and now that I'm single I'm the boss!! Lol

 

[slagheap]

love to have one of the modern tube bass heads by ampeg, fender, or mesa, but they're way too much dough. i have two fender super twins converted to bass heads - i believe each was less than $600 including the head cabs, new pwr tubes, adjustable bias, caps, screens, and resistors ( where needed, ) and they seem to stack up real well against about anything.

 

[slagheap]

oops, forgot to say: love this board! entertaining and incredibly informative.

 

[JimmyM]

love to have one of the modern tube bass heads by ampeg, fender, or mesa, but they're way too much dough. i have two fender super twins converted to bass heads - i believe each was less than $600 including the head cabs, new pwr tubes, adjustable bias, caps, screens, and resistors ( where needed, ) and they seem to stack up real well against about anything.

That would make for a cool rig, no doubt. Not a big fan of the Fender tone stack but I can always find a good sound with one.

 

[WretchedExcess]

I agree that new tube amps are way too expensive, even the ones that are being made overseas. I guess that's the price of admission if you want the glorious sound of tubes. I've also done the Super Twin Reverb conversion. I even upgraded the circuit to have 6-way independent bias so you don't have to use matched tubes. I have mixed feelings about the amp. Yes, the amp is powerful, yes it keeps up with anything and yes it sounds good, but the tone controls just aren't that versatile to me, even with the EQ. Like Jimmy says, I think it's all about the Fender tonestack vs. the James tonestack. I think that James 'stack is much better for a bass application.

I spent a lot of years as a frustrated Fender guy -- I used genuine Fender amps and high power Fender-style amps by other manufacturers (Boogies) and I got OK tone, but I never got the tone that I really wanted. When I did the STR conversion I went hrough the entire circuit fixing all sorts of little problems that you find in old amps that haven't been given enough love. It worked out OK, but it still had that unmistakable Fender tone. It was OK, but again, nothing that really grabbed me.

So there I was, I completely refurb'd a 180W Fender 6x6L6 amp. It made plenty of power, it worked OK, and it sounded OK, but it still sounded like a Fender. Boogie tonestack mods didn't help any because it's still a Fender tonestack.

Eventually I plugged into an amp with a James tonestack and WHAM! INSTANT VIBE! There was the tone I was looking for. So I brought home a pair of SVT-2 Pros and now I've got this Super Twin pushed into a corner. Of course, this has me thinking of the ultimate heresy -- ripping out the Fender preamp circuit and building an SVT-type preamp in it's place. I think that just changing the Fender 'stack over to a James-type would make the STR a killer conversion platform.

 

[JimmyM]

Wouldn't do it to a collectable amp...not sure if the Super Twin falls into that category, but I guess if you're willing to take the hit on possible collector's value, might be fun.

 

[Tim1]

One of the good points about the new Fender amps is that the second channel does away with the traditional Fender tone stack and is basically flat with all on five with a sweepable midrange. The new Fenders do not sound to me like the Bassmans of old, they are very much a new design unlike the V4B which appears to be as close as possible to a reissue. I am big fan of the new Super Bassman 300 with it's 6550 tubes which allow me to get far closer to the SVT sound when I wish. I have never quite gelled with my Fender 100T as I like lots of clean headroom, maybe because it has 6L6 tubes,and if the V4B reissue lives up to its hype then it will be in my arsenal very quickly. However, the V4b also has 6L6s so a comparison would be very interesting. A Fender Super Bassman 300 and a V4b in the arsenal would make me very happy.
I am very much with Jimmy that "less is more" so far as amp controls and gimmickry are concerned. I will, however, wait to hear a few reports back before purchasing due to an unfortunate recent experience upon which I will not expand. I will say, though, that my two new Fender heads have performed perfectly for the past year and hopefully the V4B will fall into the same category. If that is the case one will be mine

 

[boroman]

It's always risky to tell someone on the internet how wrong they are, because you never know -- you may be talking to some old fart who designed tube electronics during the golden era, who may know more than you can possibly hope to learn by surfing forums on the web. Chances are that other person might know an awful lot about the subject. Personally, I'm not going to argue. Believe what you will, and good luck reading spec sheets, assuming that the tubes are equivalent, and substituting 6L6 for 7027.

Hey, no offence here. Just nothing wrong to tell that someone is is wrong when he is... a little I repeat, in old V4's and V4B's the 7027A's and 6L6GC's are interchangeable. In this case, when almost noone but JJ makes the 7027A and you have wide market for 6L6GC's - search for the good quartet, check the bias and go for it. Every tech (inluding my two techs back in the days) will say it to you. The difference between those type of tubes does not matter for old V-series Ampeg amps.

Back to the topic, I was running V4B through 810 cab from 1990, 810 from 1980 and 810 from around 2005. V4B is bassy amp and it was the best thtough MTI cab but it's not so efficient (I think it works great for SVT because you can drive it harder), I stick with early SLM cab (rated 400W). Best thing for V4B. Efficient and open cab with lots of bass and definition. I have some "live in studio" recordings on youtube, I will search for them and post it here.

 

[AlexanderB]

I have never played through any of the V4* variants but I must admit this reissue sparked my interest. However, I would personally like to see a "blackface" variant, just like the SVT CL so it would match my modern Ampeg SVT cabinets. (Yes, I saw Ampeg will be offering vintage style grilles, but not for my two SVT-210HEs...)

 

[boroman]

You can pick used V4BH reissue from 90s with SVT-CL cosmetics. Cool amp.

 

[AlexanderB]

Unfortunately even that 90s model is fairly rare in Sweden. And since the 90s model has less power than the vintage ones, well... Let's say the reissue seems like a more "rational" purchase, even though I do not like that design as much.

BTW, there is ONE V4BH for sale in the German e-bay. Start price is €950, whereas the new reissue will cost about 50% more, €1444.

Invalid Link Removed