• 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.

Ampeg Micro-VR vs PF-350

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 165050
  • Start date Start date

Which one?

  • Micro-VR

    Votes: 25 43.1%

  • PF-350

    Votes: 33 56.9%
  • Total voters
    58
D

Deleted member 165050

Guest
#1
Considering either the 200W Micro-VR or 350W PF-350 to drive my 2 x PF-112HLF cabs... has anyone used both, is there a significant difference in volume and clean headroom?

Not intended for loud rock/metal gigs but needs to be able to hold its own with a drummer and a guitar or two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDayMan
#2
I tried both in the shop, albeit with a PF-115HLF and SVT-210AV. I've read here on TB that these are the same amps except of the power amp and sound the same, but wasn't able to confirm they sound the same. the Micro-VR was thicker (and more balanced sounding) on low volumes, but the PF was much more defined at higher volume. I preferred the 350 as:
1. I wanted a head that was able to go loud without muffling and breaking up
2. the exact MicroVR my dealer had had a loud fan and scratchy pots

ended up with neither of them frankly
 
  • Like
Reactions: wintremute, dopejohnpaul and Jim C
#5
I've owned both. No question that the PF-350 will get louder but a 200W Micro-VR through two cabs would work for me - it all depends on how much volume you need. The two amps sound the same and anyone in the audience would be hard-pressed to tell the difference. There's something about the Micro-VR's A/B power stage that, to me, delivers the sound in a more pleasing way (I've found that in other brands as well). I stuck with the Micro-VR and got rid of the PF-350. And, as always, YMMV ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: wintremute and jeff7bass
#6
I don't know if the DI unit on the Micro VR has improved since I last owned mine (2015-16ish), but if it hasn't then beware. It is the WORST sounding DI unit coming out of any amp I have ever heard. Extremely hot signal that had a horrible "sheen" to it that was impossible to remove. Not useable for any practical gigging situation at all, when it was required on nearly every gig I used it for. That said, the amp itself sounded really good, so it was just a trash DI they had installed in it. The fan was noticeable, but not what I'd call loud.

If you're looking for something more like squeaky clean at rehearsal/gigging volumes, the PF is likely to be the better choice for you. The VR could get loud enough to hang with drums and loud guitars, but it wouldn't stay perfectly clean doing so. Which I didn't mind, personally, but it sounds like you maybe want something with more clean headroom
 
#8
ficelles said:
Considering either the 200W Micro-VR or 350W PF-350 to drive my 2 x PF-112HLF cabs... has anyone used both, is there a significant difference in volume and clean headroom?

Not intended for loud rock/metal gigs but needs to be able to hold its own with a drummer and a guitar or two.
Click to expand...

I would get the PF, for the ability to semi-permanently mount it to the cab lid.

That said, I'd go for the 500. More features/controls, and a little more headroom. You just need to take the typical precautions called for when putting a potential 250W into a 200W cab. You wouldn't be going with the 500 for its extra power, but for its additional features. As such, you'd probably be running it with the master volume at no more than noon. It would equal the 350 volume-wise, but give you some useful extra doo-dads on the amp. I would go download the manuals, so you can compare the features between the 350 and the 500/800. The extra things on the 500/800 are not insignificant, IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: neuman, Aloe and MattZilla
#9
Like the PF-500, does the 350 have that sick af purple light for Power On status?
That plus the metal chassis, it would be my winner. I have zero experience with either of your two choices, but my 500 sounds really amazing, especially with some preamp gain boosted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkelley
#10
ficelles said:
is there a significant difference in volume
Click to expand...
I think I remember @JimmyM saying they're close.

The VR definitely looks cooler so I voted that because I hear with my eyes.

If volume's a concern, the 500 may be better… but then are you risking burning up a voice coil in the 210 and maybe instead ought to be shopping a bigger or second cab for whatever head you already have?
 
#11
I had two of the micro vr's and was heading toward one of the solid state PF amps when my head got turned by the pf-50.

The micro VR's are quite nice, look great, sound great, but the fan noise, while not detrimental was odd.

I have amps over 1000w and no fan noise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neuman, Lovep and MattZilla
#12
MattZilla said:
I think I remember @JimmyM saying they're close.

The VR definitely looks cooler so I voted that because I hear with my eyes.

If volume's a concern, the 500 may be better… but then are you risking burning up a voice coil in the 210 and maybe instead ought to be shopping a bigger or second cab for whatever head you already have?
Click to expand...

I currently have two 112s (each 200W) and a PF-50t. But I've decided the PF-50t is going as I have another low-power valve head, and need something that's more gig-worthy but within the 400W capacity of the two cabs... these two cabs to be precise:
 
  • Like
Reactions: WillyW, el jeffe bass, jeff7bass and 1 other person
#13
I owned both. The sound is somewhat close but definitely not the same. I will echo what everyone else has said here about the micro VR's loud fan and disappointing DI. It does have the more vintage Ampeg tone though. The 350 was definitely a cleaner, more modern tone. More clean headroom. But like others here, I eventually traded up to a pf-800 and got rid of the 350. I still use my VR with two 210AVs for small gigs, and don't have too many issues.

Also, too bad you're in the UK, or I'd def be interested in your pf50-t
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dkelley, ficelles and wintremute
#16
jeff7bass said:
I tried the Micro-VR and like it better than my PF-350. It seemed more definitive, less "round". Still had the Ampeg sound of course.
Click to expand...

I love the look of the Micro-VR, the fan noise is what's really putting me off. I could live with a poor DI but noisy fans are a pain... has anyone successfully modded for a quieter fan I wonder?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeff7bass
#17
coy garcia said:
Micro VR cause it looks cool which will probably sound better in the mind (heard lots of good reviews on it)...but I think you would be stoked with a pf50T. I have one paired with a single BBC 112 tank. Did a large outdoor venue with that small rig and it sounded amazing.
Click to expand...

I currently have a PF-50t but need more clean headroom...
 
  • Like
Reactions: WillyW
#18
ficelles said:
I love the look of the Micro-VR, the fan noise is what's really putting me off. I could live with a poor DI but noisy fans are a pain... has anyone successfully modded for a quieter fan I wonder?
Click to expand...
I really didn't notice the fan noise because I tried it at GC and turned it up fairly loud to see what it could do. If recording, I could see where it might be a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12BitSlab
#20
That THD is gorgeous and I'm surprised this is the first I'm seeing either it or the Uni on TB!

Interesting that it wins over the PF50T for you.

I'm curious if you've experimented on a bunch of tubes and settled on a certain combination or if you just like it in whatever configuration with which it came to you.

~~~

On Topic, it seems like PF350 or PF500 are the better options to be considering if you're trying to keep to the correct logo.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back