• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Acoustic mini vs. Ampeg Mini

#21
I was doing notes for reviews of a Carvin vs. MM Bongo vs. Euro Spector 5 head on, and had to do some string tests on the Bongo. These were low volume tests while recording on the Zoom. I bounced between the Ampeg BA112 and the Acoustic mini (I will not say 260) and one difference was that things in the room near me started to rattle and vibrate with the Acoustic. Later I listened to the Zoom. The Acoustic was as not near as loud as the Ampeg (DANG! - do I need do that over?!?) The rumble must have spooked me. Don't want to bother wife and 2 year old.

Don't you wish that GC Acoustic gave a forum for folks to give feedback? The company is 2.5 billion a year. I would think they could afford it.

Mumblings now over.
 
#23
:cool:

This is cool because yesterday I A/B both the Acoustic 260, and the Ampeg Micro VR.

I agree with the review above.

But to my surprise, The Acoustic 260 was a little tone monster.
Yes one tone, but more bottom than the Ampeg.

And the Acoustic 1x10, volume was almost as loud as the Ampeg, with it's 2x10.

That 1x10 ported cab is something special. (muck like the original Acoustic cabs form the 60's, and 70's.

For the price difference, I would buy the Acoustic.

And this is from a life-long Ampeg user.
 
#24
Ziggy,
What a great review! Exactly what I was looking for! I have been cruising for reviews on both the Acoustic and Ampeg minis and far too many of them are "I like it" or I don't like it". Yours gave me the info I was looking for. Long winded? What we need are more "long winded" reviews! Thanks!
 
#26
I saw somone on here joke about slaving 2 acoustic 260 togeather.Is that possible?I dont know much about slaving a amp but dont you need a pre amp signal.I love the sound of the 260 and like it better than the ampeg with single cab.So if you could slave the 260 200 watt 2 10 for the same price as the ampeg with single cab!Also for what it would cost to have the ampeg with both cabs could you slave 3 260 togther?LOL that last one might be asking alot LOL.
 
#27
I just bought both the Acoustic 260 and the Ampeg Micro VR. I have them side by side, and have been spending a lot of time experimenting with different combinations.
Now, I'm an old geezer who had an SVT with two cabs back in the 70's, but never had a big Acoustic (although I dreamed about them.. :)
That being said....I "like" the sound of the little Acoustic much more than the Ampeg! I was very surprised, it's not what I expected! The Acoustic has much more bottom, seems almost as loud as the Ampeg (I guess 100 watts vs. 200 watts isn't much difference, but the Ampeg is also not giving it's full juice through one cabinet). I've swapped heads & cabinets also, I really, really love the Acoustic head through the Ampeg 210, that kicks some booty!
Anyway, people ave been chiming in with their opinions & personal experiences, thought I'd chime in with mine.
I had "assumed" I'd like the Ampeg better, if I had been able to try them in a store ahead of time, I definitely would have just bought the Acoustic!
 
#28
I liked the Acoustic a lot better having used both. I spent a good half hour jamming on it with an EBMM SR Classic and wanted the amp and the Ray! It was a tough call not walking out of there with the stack since the Ray surely wouldn't happen...
 
#30
not surprised the acoustic has more bottom...only one speaker in a box that could probably hold two. but while it's pretty decent, i still like the micro vr better because i don't need or want extended low end. i want sealed 810 low end. plus, of course, the expandability thing is pretty important to me (just ordered another cab!).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavesnothereCA
#31
as mentioned in the review a lot is style. A slap guy would take the Ampeg. But JimmyM scored a grat point about what Acoustic (well a few guys in an office at Guitar Center) still can't comprehend. Make the rig versatile and let the players decide how to make it sing.
 
#32
Considering the difference in sound between these two, has anyone got a "mini" review about playing these A/B in a small band rehearsal?

I wonder if, since the Ampeg came through so much better on the Zoom recorder, the Ampeg's mids-emphasis (I infer this correctly?) would make for more volume/presence in a live mix than the Acoustic's bigger bottom?
 
#33
I used the Acoustic mini at some practices with both bands. Unless a quiet practice it was not enough. I had to cut back the low end to get more volume and was overstressing the speaker. I don't think the Ampeg would do any better without a second cab. I do use the mini head on a bigger cab and that works.
 
#34
ZiggyDude said:
I used the Acoustic mini at some practices with both bands. Unless a quiet practice it was not enough. I had to cut back the low end to get more volume and was overstressing the speaker. I don't think the Ampeg would do any better without a second cab. I do use the mini head on a bigger cab and that works.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Zig; it does appear from posts here that it's a pretty specific market for this little booger, and that'll explain why I see two of them on local craigslist ads (one asking $100 for 'like-new', but the guy's moving, and under a little pressure). That's not to diss it, it's cute like the little Ampeg (:D), and certainly has its niche... but I think that "apparent lows" when solo'd might mean less presence than desirable in a live mix. Seems the weak link is the cab.

I do think Ampeg has the leg-up here, as they've been smarter with use of power and flexibility, therefore the Micro VR is more like a real amp.

I think I'll hang onto my Hartke A100 for now though. Again, I appreciate the more specific info for 'in use'. :cool:
 
#35
i suppose you could run from the headphone out to the input of the 2nd head.. i'm not sure if the headphone out cuts the speaker, though.. it would be a simple mod to add another "slave" out in parallel with the headphone jack, without the switch to cut the speakers..

i think the real reason why they didn't make the cab an 8 ohm impedance is that the head is only 100 watts.. the headroom would drop dramatically if it was to an 8 ohm cab.. you'd only be able to turn it up about 1/4 of the way and it would start distorting/farting..

i wonder if there's any design leeway that would allow to increase the output.. i.e. transformer/transistor swap to get to 200 watts.. then running an 8 ohm cab wouldn't be a problem, and running two cabs would bring it to the level of the Ampeg.. of course, you'd have to find an 8 Ohm speaker that would closely match the OEM.. by then, you'd have as much into it as the Ampeg and i'm not sure if the investment would actually be worth it..

i've played the 260 at GC, and was surprised at it's output.. the tone stack is pretty narrow, so there's only so much you can do with it.. but, for what it is and the cost, it would be a pretty cool little amp to have around..

i think the main difference is that the Ampeg has sealed cabs.. if the Ampeg's cabs were ported, the low output would be quite different.. but would lose the tone it has..

eh.. i think the Ampeg would be much better if it actually used a 12AX7/12AU7 in the preamp and increase the power to 300 watts.. ;)

as for the Acoustic, cosmetically, it would be simple to make stickers/wraps to go over the face of the amp and replace the blue band on the cab to the "correct" color and have the blue sides on the head..

i want the 260.. or two...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back