So... two really great amps here, I know that much! I’ve heard demos of both on youtube but never heard either in person. From what I’ve heard in videos (and lets be honest, how much can you really tell from those videos anyway) they sound really good, but without a doubt I’d still have to try one out with my own bass for myself. Both are jam packed with great features, the Ashdown a little more so, and with a tube preamp over a solid state one in the Ampeg, so the Ashdown ends up being a few hundred dollars more. How are both amps tonally? I mean I know one is SS and one tube, but are they similar or vastly different. With YouTube videos, there’s different cabs, eq settings, rooms, mics, players, WAY too many variables to tell and the same amp will sound amazing in one video and s#!+ the next. Does the Ashdown get anywhere close to that sound of an SVT? I know an SVT all tube head is like the holy grail of bass tone, it literally works for all music. As far as specs, the Ashdown has 300watts. Ampeg has 50 more watts at 8ohms. At 4ohms, it has 500 watts. Not sure about the Ashdown, if it changes. It’s only listed as 300 on the website, doesn’t say anything about ohms. Either way, 300 watts just enough for me, 500 is plenty, maybe a bit too much for my needs. When it comes to weight, I’m guessing the Ashdown weighs a LOT more than the Ampeg, but I haven’t checked for myself. Looks: both amps look really cool. I love the nice blue face on the Ashdown, and the glowing input needle thingy that’s signature Ashdown. However, the portaflex just wins over for me, just a bit more my taste. But both have a cool vintage aesthetic. Reliability between the two? I know both the portaflex and ABM lines have had their fair share of “glitches” in the past, just wondering what they’re like today and if those kinks were rectified or if they still bear those burdens. I believe the portaflex are running smooth now, and have been for a while, and it was more the earlier ones that had the issues. Not sure about the ABM. Both feature mute buttons. Both have line outs. Both have 4 band eq (I don’t use the sliders like on the ABM, so I’ll only use the knobs) Both have a compressor. The Portaflex however, has an ultra hi and ultra lo, which tbh I really like the idea of that and would use that a lot with my passive p bass, to get more versatility from it at gigs or recording. The ABM on the other hand has a drive section, and an octave section, however I can see myself using the ultra buttons on the PF more. Besides the tube factor in the ABM, is there any reason why I would go for that over the portaflex? Does it really sound like a good tube amp, or is it a bit of a hit and miss like the Bugera tube amps? The portaflexes sound amazing and balanced, with great dynamics, even without tubes. Been eyeing off the PF for a while now, and now stumbled across the ABM on the web and looks very very impressive, wondering if it’s worth the extra few hundred? My basses are both passive: a 60s style p with flats (parts build) and a standard jazz bass with CS pickups and GHS rounds. I play pop, soul and RnB (including neo soul), blues, disco, electronic and indie rock. So quite a versatile palette, in need of a versatile rig. Thanks guys. I look forward to hear what you have to say!