Amp Heads vs Components?

[Jim Bergantino]

Despite my respect for the products, the effortless heft and immediacy of my BS detector is informing me this statement is about 50% marketing puffery.

Have you played one? And to be clear, BS-ing is not one of my "Forte's"!

 

[Redbrangus]

Despite its high power rating, it's equally at home with lower power rated speakers, and at bedroom volume levels too. It's effortless heft and immediacy will allow you to be heard and felt at lower volume levels than even the lower power heads.

I said I respect the products. I was commenting on the pure puffery of statements like that one, which I felt contributed little to this particular thread, as pointless as it might be. I appreciate your participation on the board and I'm glad you're here, but I would prefer to be spared the marketing-speak.

 

[Jim Bergantino]

I said I respect the products. I was commenting on the pure puffery of statements like that one, which I felt contributed little to this particular thread, as pointless as it might be. I appreciate your participation on the board and I'm glad you're here, but I would prefer to be spared the marketing-speak.

I respect and appreciate your viewpoint, but it honestly wasn't meant as marketing speak. I am not a marketing person. I'm a designer and engineer and that was the basis from which my comments were formed. I wanted players to know it really does stand up to those separate rigs of yesteryear, including, and most importantly, the performance of the much revered lead sleds. It is this tone and performance designers of Class D amps have been chasing for years. No different than the neo/ceramic tone and performance we've been chasing for 20+ years. I'm an engineer and audiophile, first and only. And that was the premise behind my response, and why I wanted to share it for those who were interested. Sorry if my post was misconstrued as marketing hype.
I welcome the moderators to delete my post if they feel otherwise.

 

[5_4]

So, Redbrangus, did you ever go the power amp/preamp route or did you have a favorite amp head and if so, what was the best thing about it. For a while in the 70's I used a Fender Bassman 100 with the 4-12 cab that had the inverted diamond shape. It was one of the best sounding amps that I used but I could never get the volumn from it to keep up with the rest of the band.

 

[2saddleslab]

So, Redbrangus, did you ever go the power amp/preamp route or did you have a favorite amp head and if so, what was the best thing about it. For a while in the 70's I used a Fender Bassman 100 with the 4-12 cab that had the inverted diamond shape. It was one of the best sounding amps that I used but I could never get the volumn from it to keep up with the rest of the band.

Back in the early 80's I had that same 4-12 Fender cab w/ a 135 head. The cab was a beast to transport which forced me into replacing it w/ a couple Bassman 212s. Those were easier to move & both fit in the trunk of my car.

 

[5_4]

The 4-12's I had were in a single cab, about the size of the Ampeg 8-10. I thought that inverted diamond shape was unique but never really understood the theory of pointing those speakers to converge a given point. But it sure sounded good. A lot to move around for such low volume. Went to a Cervin-Vega folded horn after that, that had no issues with volume and keeping up with the band; just a strained back.

 

[5_4]

2saddleslab, was your Fender 135 to keep up with the your bands volume (assuming you used it in a band setting)?

 

[2saddleslab]

The 4-12's I had were in a single cab, about the size of the Ampeg 8-10. I thought that inverted diamond shape was unique but never really understood the theory of pointing those speakers to converge a given point. But it sure sounded good. A lot to move around for such low volume. Went to a Cervin-Vega folded horn after that, that had no issues with volume and keeping up with the band; just a strained back.

Yeah, I thought the angled speaker layout looked cool and the amp & cab came as a package deal at a local music store. But after moving that behemoth a couple times I knew I had to make some changes.

 

[2saddleslab]

2saddleslab, was your Fender 135 to keep up with the your bands volume (assuming you used it in a band setting)?

The 135 had no problem keeping up w/ both a loud guitar player & drummer when using 2 x 212's.

 

[Redbrangus]

There wasn't much wrong with the big Fender heads of that era, but that 412 cab was a miserable design. Legendarily so. That amp would probably have been fine with a better speaker cab.

I'm not arguing that modern bass amps haven't eliminated much of the motivation for using a rack rig, I'm just saying that -- if the form factor works for you -- there's no reason not to, especially if you feel the need to employ some fancier, studio-grade outboard processing or effects. (I don't.) There's certainly no reason to regard the concept as somehow obsolete.

 

[5_4]

Redbrangus, can you elaborate a little on what you know about the "bad design" of that inverted 4-12? No challenge here except to learn why it was considered a bad design; I always thought it was a weird design but thought it sounded good. Perhaps it the Bassman 100 was such a good head that the rig sounded good in spite of the cab. Also, you are spot on about the used of studio grade gear and the changeability to garner a different sound by changing a pre-amp. That's kinda what I did, to a limited extent.

 

[Jeff Scott]

I have put together many a rack system, the first being in 1978.

 

[Redbrangus]

Redbrangus, can you elaborate a little on what you know about the "bad design" of that inverted 4-12? No challenge here except to learn why it was considered a bad design; I always thought it was a weird design but thought it sounded good. Perhaps it the Bassman 100 was such a good head that the rig sounded good in spite of the cab. Also, you are spot on about the used of studio grade gear and the changeability to garner a different sound by changing a pre-amp. That's kinda what I did, to a limited extent.

There have been threads here about that box; it is sometimes referred to as the 'pyramid' cab. As noted, the cab is HUGE, and yet it has very little airspace BEHIND the drivers -- not really enough internal volume for four 12s. All that angled stuff in front contributes nothing positive to the performance -- it's not doing anything like horn loading, and contributes very little to dispersion, if that was the concept. So it's just a bunch of wasted space. (Did I mention the cab is HUGE? ) Even with the marginal 'Fender Special Design' speakers of the era, they probably would have achieved better performance by simply stuffing them into a more conventional cab, maybe about half that size.

 

[5_4]

Redbrangus, thanks for the insight. Now that you bring up those limitations, I can see it. I will search for the other references. I didn't know or had forgotten that it was referred to as the "pyramid cab". It was a huge cab for what you got inside of it. The cab had screw down posts on the top of it to anchor the head to it. (I am sure other Fender amps had this feature also, I just had no experience with them though).

 

[Wasnex]

Despite my respect for the products, the effortless heft and immediacy of my BS detector is informing me this statement is about 50% marketing puffery.

Mr Bergantino's products have a pretty stellar reputation for excellence in engineering and performance. I am sure he could provide a more objective description if you ask.

 

[Wasnex]

Redbrangus, can you elaborate a little on what you know about the "bad design" of that inverted 4-12?

• Lot's of people think they sound bad.
• The design uses very low-powered drivers that are easy to blow.
• The inverted pyramid baffle is prone to breaking apart at the seams, especially if you decide to install heavier, more-powerful drivers.

You are entitled to like it anyway.

 

[Redbrangus]

• Lot's of people think they sound bad.
• The design uses very low-powered drivers that are easy to blow.
• The inverted pyramid baffle is prone to breaking apart at the seams, especially if you decide to install heavier, more-powerful drivers.

You are entitled to like it anyway.

Thanks for the reminder, Was -- I'd forgotten about the falling apart issue. Yeah, add this list to my previous observations. Fender was never exactly stellar in the area of speaker design, but this particular one was a real miss. If I'm not mistaken, this was about the same time that they were offering the 4Ω, single-18 horn-loaded enclosure, also relatively huge, but at least somewhat more effective.

 

[5_4]

Ha! This is good info! I just remember the deep bass sounds I got from that rig. But, as I stated before, maybe the smooth tone I liked came from the Bassman 100 head. I did not use it long enough to have it fall apart as it was just not loud enough. Thanks for your responses on this. I do also remember the 18" cabs; looked somewhat like the Acoustic folded horns. I don't remember if the Fender cabs were folded horns or not.

 

[Jim Bergantino]

Mr Bergantino's products have a pretty stellar reputation for excellence in engineering and performance. I am sure he could provide a more objective description if you ask.

Essentially I was just responding to FastSlappers comment saying that if your speakers can handle the power of the Ultra…. and just wanted to make sure players realize you don't have to have a high powered speaker to enjoy the benefits of a high powered, high headroom amp. I didn't mean it to come across as a marketing post, just an informative post so that no one is afraid of any amp with a power output that exceeds their speakers power rating. It's like saying I don't know if I can buy a car that can go 100MPH if I'm going to just use it for city driving. I've had more emails than I care to remember regarding this very topic. Power, headroom, speaker rating, etc. When I got called out for marketing BS it caught me off guard and I managed to take this thread away from its intended subject matter. Clearly not my intent and my apologies for doing so. So back to your regularly scheduled program!;-)

 

[Bob_Ross]

I've used a number of rack mount component rigs over the years:

The first such rig was based on an Intersound IVP preamp, with an AudioArts 1200 compressor, and a Peavey M-3000 power amp.

The next version swapped out the Peavey amp for a (much nicer) QSC 1400 power amp, and added an Alesis QuadraVerb+ multi-effects processor.

After a few years using an SWR SM-400 as the centerpiece of my stage rig, my final rack component system consisted of an Alembic F-1X preamp, an Alembic SF-2 SuperFilter, and a Crown power amp whose model # I always forget.

But my rack component days are over, and these days I'm just using small Class D dedicated one-piece bass heads.