• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
#242
Hnz said:
Well, perhaps you're more patient than I am and find the sweet spot on the WA easily.
The B100 does sound fuller and warmer than the Micro VR - possibly got to do with the single 15".
To me the Micro VR with two 210's is loud enough for the bars and small clubs I play in. Anything bigger will be handled by the PA.
And I just love the vertical stack that takes hardly any space on stage and enables me to hear myself pretty well.

Just a note: The WA likes the Ampeg 210AV cabs a lot also!
Click to expand...

Well, that remains to be seen--I won't have it until Wednesday ;)
 
#246
Zeds said:
Got mine today!
Ampeg PF500 head + GK Neo 112 - II
Doesn't seem to sound that loud though, I guess will find out once I use this rig in a Gig..
Click to expand...
that would be the cab rather than the head. respek to gk but it it's only a 112. even a neo 112 won't take 300w without farting.
 
#248
I've been in and out of this thread, so I don't know if this has been discussed, but is there any reason the Portaflex cabs are rated at 450 watts? Seems like they would make them able to take the whole 500w of the PF-500 head.
Not that you'd need to dime the amp always, but it seems like the cab capability is short.
Am I missing something?

S
 
#249
Slackerprince said:
I've been in and out of this thread, so I don't know if this has been discussed, but is there any reason the Portaflex cabs are rated at 450 watts? Seems like they would make them able to take the whole 500w of the PF-500 head.
Not that you'd need to dime the amp always, but it seems like the cab capability is short.
Am I missing something?

S
Click to expand...

The PF500 is rated at 500W @ 4 ohms and 250W @ 8 ohms. The cabs are 8 ohms, so you'd have to run two cabs to get the full power of the amp, and since they're rated at 450W each, you're golden.
 
#250
Slackerprince said:
I've been in and out of this thread, so I don't know if this has been discussed, but is there any reason the Portaflex cabs are rated at 450 watts? Seems like they would make them able to take the whole 500w of the PF-500 head.
Not that you'd need to dime the amp always, but it seems like the cab capability is short.
Am I missing something?

S
Click to expand...
ampeg's power handling quotes have usually been pretty accurate as to real world usage, whereas most companies grossly overrate their real world power handling and use the wattage the voice coil burns out instead. so it's rare you'll find a cab that takes what they say it does. i haven't tried any of these cabs yet (obviously) so I don't know what they'll take real world, but i believe ampeg's power handling ratings much sooner than most other companies' ratings.

however, i know for a fact that they'll take at least 250w real world, which is all a pf500 will give it at 8 ohms, so as stated, you're golden.
 
#252
ButtUglyJeff said:
Anybody else notice that the wattage ratings for the Portaflex heads are @ 4 ohms, and the cabinets are showing ratings @ 8 ohms...

http://www.ampeg.com/products/portaflex/pf-500/index.html
http://www.ampeg.com/products/portaflex/pf-210he/

Seems odd and a bit confusing, especially considering these are prices and marketed for the part timer/weekend warrior crowd...
Click to expand...

Yep, it's all about marketing. My guess is they figure that when people figure out the power ratings are @ 4 ohms (it gives you the 8 ohm rating as well, but you have to do your homework), and that to the full power of the head, they'll need two cabs, they'll spring for another one....
 
#253
ButtUglyJeff said:
Anybody else notice that the wattage ratings for the Portaflex heads are @ 4 ohms, and the cabinets are showing ratings @ 8 ohms...

http://www.ampeg.com/products/portaflex/pf-500/index.html
http://www.ampeg.com/products/portaflex/pf-210he/

Seems odd and a bit confusing, especially considering these are prices and marketed for the part timer/weekend warrior crowd...
Click to expand...

That's because the head can go down to a minimum of 4 ohms, which would be two of the PF cabinets together (presumably stacked). Listing the wattage like that is pretty standard.
 
#254
not really a valid complaint imho. people want expandability. i would never buy a rig anymore that would only let you hook up one cab or wouldn't let you expand on a combo. wattage is meaningless in the long run compared to speaker area. you'll get way more volume boost by adding a speaker than adding a couple hundred watts.
 
#255
JimmyM said:
not really a valid complaint imho. people want expandability. i would never buy a rig anymore that would only let you hook up one cab or wouldn't let you expand on a combo. wattage is meaningless in the long run compared to speaker area. you'll get way more volume boost by adding a speaker than adding a couple hundred watts.
Click to expand...


Hey, I get it. Practically everyone that bothers to come to TalkBass, will understand. I've called deal breaker on several combos, because of lack of expandability, and I'm a huge dum dum. You would just think the pages that show the heads would show the 4 ohm and 8 ohm ratings. I think more people would understand how the cabinets can be used in tandem.

Every other head, on Ampeg's site, shows it that way...

No big deal here.
 
#256
JimmyM said:
wattage is meaningless in the long run compared to speaker area. you'll get way more volume boost by adding a speaker than adding a couple hundred watts.
Click to expand...

So would the pf-350 be much louder then the micro-vr into a single 15?

I'm tempted to get this head over the micro-vr because of the extra power but... Volume isn't super important for me right now but it might be someday. But I really like the looks of the micro. So torn and my b-day is right around the corner.
 
#257
the volume will be a little louder but it won't be dramatic. you'll have more clean headroom if a micro vr taps out on you, though. personally, i'm totally happy with the micro vr in every way and just ordered a second cab for it. your mileage may vary.
 
#258
JimmyM said:
not really a valid complaint imho. people want expandability. i would never buy a rig anymore that would only let you hook up one cab or wouldn't let you expand on a combo. wattage is meaningless in the long run compared to speaker area. you'll get way more volume boost by adding a speaker than adding a couple hundred watts.
Click to expand...

So, as far as speaker area, you're better off with the 2X10 as far as maximizing area? I guess there are preferences with 15vs. 2X10, too.
 
#259
Slackerprince said:
So, as far as speaker area, you're better off with the 2X10 as far as maximizing area? I guess there are preferences with 15vs. 2X10, too.
Click to expand...
well i was generalizing a little, because there are other factors such as amount of cone movement that enter into it as well. but assuming equal build quality and similar specs, a 115 will be about the same volume as a 210. and a 410 would be about the same as a 215. and that's half the reason why 10"s became popular for bass....more speaker area can be crammed into a smaller box.
 
#260
Personally, I have a problem with needing an additional cab to maximize the wattage of the head. I think it would be awesome to have the head and cab be a self-contained unit that is matched and 100% compatible, with no other gear needed, but that's just me.
BTW, I tried a Micro VR at GC the other day and really liked the tone. The cabinet buzzed a little bit, but I'll attribute that to a GC floor model.
I'm liking the idea of the new Porta's, overall.

S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back