• 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 PF500/PF350 Pt II.5

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,001
carl h. said:
What's that you say Lassie, someone swapped Preparation H for his hand lotion and he is typing like a what?
Click to expand...

Just to make sure I have this straight.

The question was asked about running 4-8ohm 15" cabs into the PF500. I added that you wouldn't want to anyway because it's not enough watts per cab (too sound good in a live setting). What I got back from Jimmy M is "I've done this before" and "I've done that before" with him letting me know of his "vast amount of experience" as the cherry on top. I believe that a majority of experienced bass players agree that more headroom gives a better sound. If I have 500 watts to use I'd send them to 2 400 watt 15' speakers rated up to 800 watts so I'd be at least powering to just over half their capacity. Really , it would be less because I wouldn't have my amp turned up all the way, anyway.

Based on how you've responded, let me mention that I appreciate being a member of this forum enough to not respond in a manner in which I'd be otherwise, so inclined to do after the kindness you've just shown me (I've been watching Deadwood on HBO). I've lost my dignity towards another member because of an insult thrown at an influence of mine but that's about it. You suggest I'm a what ? Over what ? Really ? I'm kind of proud of myself.
 
#1,004
Session
I think most of us tend to agree that running 4 cabs is not ideal. Considering that would give you an ohm rating way lower than the amp is designed for.
You stated that it would sound "anemic" which to me equals poor tone? Correct me if I'm wrong, but If you could run this setup how is the tone affected by lack of power? Wouldn't that just kill your head room? which you stated earlier?

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match, just wondering why you chose to make this a personal matter. I'm so inclined to see that comment as sarcastic in nature, and felt it to be light hearted. I, nor you, know the true intention of the above poster though.

So you're going to take it however you feel. I just dont feel he was personally attacking you. Just making fun of the situation in general.
 
#1,005
Session1969 said:
Just to make sure I have this straight.

The question was asked about running 4-8ohm 15" cabs into the PF500. I added that you wouldn't want to anyway because it's not enough watts per cab (too sound good in a live setting). What I got back from Jimmy M is "I've done this before" and "I've done that before" with him letting me know of his "vast amount of experience" as the cherry on top. I believe that a majority of experienced bass players agree that more headroom gives a better sound.
Click to expand...
So you've taken a poll?

Now you're getting into matters of taste, and while you can find many bass players who believe as you, there are as many bass players who don't care about how little wattage they use as long as it's enough for them to get the job done, and there are plenty of bass players who not only don't care about headroom, they want their sound to be dirty.

So let's forget about opinions and let's stick to the facts. You said in an earlier post:

Session1969 said:
+1. I'll add that you wouldn't have enough headroom either. 500 "light" watts(digital) to push 1600 watts of cab capability would be a little anemic, imo.
Click to expand...
And none of it is true. First off, whether created with tubes or with micro technology (digital is an inaccurate and misleading description), watts are determined the exact same way regardless of topology. A watt is a watt is a watt. This is not something I made up. This is backed up by anyone who knows anything about amp engineering.

Second, anyone who could stand in front of two SVT 810e cabs (total power handling: 1600w) powered by an SVT turned up to its top clean volume (300w RMS) and not call it screaming loud is either deaf or plays in a doom band whose purpose in life is to make their audiences have heart attacks from volume. And a rig like that may be called a lot of things, but anemic certainly isn't one of them.

And when I pointed that out, your replies were of the non-scientific and smart-alecky variety..."Keep telling yourself that," or "Whatever floats your boat." So if you have an actual reply that can prove I'm wrong that's based on the sciences of amp building and audio reproduction, I'm all ears.
 
#1,007
Jheake said:
Session
I think most of us tend to agree that running 4 cabs is not ideal. Considering that would give you an ohm rating way lower than the amp is designed for.
You stated that it would sound "anemic" which to me equals poor tone? Correct me if I'm wrong, but If you could run this setup how is the tone affected by lack of power? Wouldn't that just kill your head room? which you stated earlier?

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match, just wondering why you chose to make this a personal matter. I'm so inclined to see that comment as sarcastic in nature, and felt it to be light hearted. I, nor you, know the true intention of the above poster though.

So you're going to take it however you feel. I just dont feel he was personally attacking you. Just making fun of the situation in general.
Click to expand...

I meant anemic as in not enough usable volume to justify the extra haul of two cabs. My experience tells me that when I run too many cabs to an amp , it farts out alot sooner because of the strain being put on the amp. Am I off on this observation,iyo ?
 
#1,008
Session1969 said:
I meant anemic as in not enough usable volume to justify the extra haul of two cabs. My experience tells me that when I run too many cabs to an amp , it farts out alot sooner because of the strain being put on the amp. Am I off on this observation,iyo ?
Click to expand...
Yep. Adding a second identical cab adds 3db worth of volume, and when using a solid state head, it also bumps up the wattage considerably, on average 70-80%. So you should actually have a lot more headroom using more cabs than fewer. If you're not getting it, it's some other reason. Could be a phase problem, or it could be non-matching cabs with unequal output capability and/or phase response.
 
#1,009
Session1969 said:
I meant anemic as in not enough usable volume to justify the extra haul of two cabs. My experience tells me that when I run too many cabs to an amp , it farts out alot sooner because of the strain being put on the amp. Am I off on this observation,iyo ?
Click to expand...

You are not only off, you are dead wrong, as long as you have the impedance matched. Four ohms is four ohms, is four ohms, no matter how you cut it. Or eight, or whatever. If you want to run four cabs with a PF500, just wire two eight ohm cabs in series, then another pair of eight ohm cabs in series. Each of these pairs will be sixteen ohms. Then run the two sixteen ohm pairs in parallel. This gives you the same eight ohm load that the amp sees with one cab. However, you will have a whole lot more speaker area to move the air.
 
#1,011
Session1969 said:
My point was that I wouldn't that. Are you saying that you think he should run four cabs off a 500 watt head ?
Click to expand...

Why not? An 810 is nothing more than four 210s, and people run SVT's into 810s all the time. Most of them really like the results. SVTs are less than 500 watts. I'm not saying that anyone should run four cabs. I'm just saying that multiple drivers won't hurt anything if the impedance is matched. Google Phil Jones bass cabs.
 
#1,012
John D said:
Why not? An 810 is nothing more than four 210s, and people run SVT's into 810s all the time. Most of them really like the results. SVTs are less than 500 watts. I'm not saying that anyone should run four cabs. I'm just saying that multiple drivers won't hurt anything if the impedance is matched. Google Phil Jones bass cabs.
Click to expand...

This is more of an opinion than anything else. I certainly hope Jimmy knows that I welcome his argument because alot of times I find something to learn. I'm advising going with more headroom which you get more of from an amp like an SVT vs. a 500 watt solid state. 500 watts(sloid state/digital) would be the minimum I'd run into a 4-10 , for example. I say that from my experience using a pre/poweramp setup and have since always tried to have power to spare even with just a head. I hear a difference in sound quality when I have more headroom. It doesn't mean I'm playing too loud or that my opinion is absolute.I thought my advice was a good consolation considering you can't run a 2 ohm load into the PF500 , anyway. Jimmy quoted me and contradicted me so I responded. I was simply defending my opinion and I wasn't taking anything personally. I know I'm not the only one with this opinion and I also see that others have the point of view that 500 solid state watts is plenty. I disagree is all. Jimmy responed by trying to tell me my thinking is wrong and my position is "you can't hand me a bowl of jello and tell me it's gravy when I already know what each one of them looks and tastes like". Peace.
 
#1,014
Well since you like hearing from me so much ;) two things to consider:

1. If you have plenty of headroom with 100w going into a large cab rig, assuming the 100w amp and the 500w amp have the same preamp, what will having 500w do for you that you're not getting with the 100w?

2. You seem to be hung up on the idea of "digital" watts, and the idea that solid state watts are less than tube watts. There is no such thing as "digital" watts, and watts are watts no matter how they're created.

3 (OK, three things). You said you wouldn't use an SVT for any more than a 410. While there are folks who use 410's with SVT's, much more common is using an SVT with an 810. Anyone who thinks an SVT into an 810 sounds anemic is on drugs. That's not an opinion...that's fact ;)

I will be happy to contradict myself and admit I'm wrong if you have tangible scientific evidence that anything I said was wrong. I've never had a problem admitting I was wrong in the past, and I'm not about to start now. But if you don't have it, then I'll be moving on.
 
#1,015
It's not important to me that I prove you wrong. It seemed important to me to defend my advice earlier but now I don't really care.

More importantly, the reason I was keeping up on this thread before our debate is that I'm excited to try out this rig ! Common sense tells me that the R&B, Country, Funk and Reggae tunes will sound fine. I just hope I can get a good rock sound as well and I'll be stoked ! It's a great looking stack !
 
#1,020
mazdah said:
Anyone compared the PF 350 to SVT-3PRO? Or PF 115 to SVT-15E ?

I love my current stack but I think it may be the right time to go on with something newer. Also I like the vintage blue tolex more... ;)
Click to expand...

I played a 3 pro/pf210, then a pf350/pf210 in-store the other day.
While it was instore & I couldn't really test outright volume, I had a good play & test of tone & characteristics.
I liked the pf350 more, in that it had more of an old school feel. Dunno whether this is the class D, or a way Ampeg have designed em?
But it's same with my 7 pro- it seems to sound far more tube-like & old school, than the 3 pro to me too.
But, both the 2 pf heads & the 7 pro can easily be eq'd to a modern tone if u like.
I still like the 3 pro, but these 3 new babies are a touch more my style.
I used to own an all tube SVT II & my 7 pro can nail a tone SO close to that amp, that I'm real happy with it.
The pf350 is pretty close too, the pf500, even closer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back