For loudness I will take a m6 carbine over a pro 7 anyday, and a m9 would blow the pro 7 right off its cabinet, all without cutting out.
And I am an Ampeg guy and I want the pro 7 for sound but will wait until the problem is fixed.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 svt pro 7.
- Thread starter william curl
- Start date
For loudness I will take a m6 carbine over a pro 7 anyday, and a m9 would blow the pro 7 right off its cabinet, all without cutting out.
And I am an Ampeg guy and I want the pro 7 for sound but will wait until the problem is fixed.
Yeah, I A/B'd my Streamliner 600 up against a -7Pro the other day, and it was every bit as loud, FWIW...
- georgestrings
You should like G-K then as well. The Fusion 550 made over it's RMS rating and well over on burst tests, same with the MB800 (BGM tests).
Yes, I'm sure you guys can hear tremendous volume differences between those slightly different wattages 
The difference is huge! Like the difference between a pin or horsefly hitting a cymbal 
That was not the point though? 
That was not the point though? Yes, I'm sure you guys can hear tremendous volume differences between those slightly different wattages
The point is when you pay for something specific you want all you paid for. If you paid for a 580 hp Camaro, then broke it in and took it to a dyno and it was only putting out 435 hp you would be pissed to say the least, but your point is well taken and received.
For those who play in very loud bands this kind of information could be important, for the rest of us knowing that a particular head won't be too much for our cabinets is good too.
I'm just saying that if anyone needs whatever wattage you might want to get a head that advertises about three hundred more than you need and then you will have exactly what you need.
The 7 pro is still in my sites regardless, its an amazing price and has great tone.
I've had my 7Pro for about two years now-done a bunch of gigs, lots of rehearsals, plenty of sessions and have had ZERO problems. I run it through an Epifani 112NYC for smaller gigs and a 810 Megoliath or big gigs and in each situation it does exceptionally well. Plenty of volume to keep up with really loud drummers and plenty of articulation and tone for the smaller jazz settings. I've read a lot of flack on this head, but its been nothing but pure Ampeg tone and reliability in my experience. Grind when I need it or smooth Motown, it just dishes up the goods when the time comes!
man the 7 get's some interesting posts and love/hate!
Myself- I'm pretty damn happy with it and have run it VERY hard. I tossed a GB streamliner 900 for it and am happy I did, although it's really a close race with those two. I sold my 900 to my guitarist and I rehearse in his space so at rehearsals I play the 900, gig the 7 pro. I think I know them both EXTREMELY well at this point. The 7 pro just sits better live, fills the room, cuts in a band mix, is loud, and delivers. Mine is a Rev C00 and has never given me a hiccup.
The 900 sounds insane in a small set up, in a bedroom etc. HUGE bottom end and sounds sweet and defined on it's own. I'm a live player though- don't woodshed much and always play live with bands of all kinds of lineups. Never could get the 900 to cut live and my band mates always complained of my lack of presence and clarity (first time in my career).
Maybe I've just been lucky with my 7 pro regarding the cut out issues, and I guess I'm thankful for that, but she's a damn nice amp, damn loud, and has fantastic thick, warm, rich tone.
Myself- I'm pretty damn happy with it and have run it VERY hard. I tossed a GB streamliner 900 for it and am happy I did, although it's really a close race with those two. I sold my 900 to my guitarist and I rehearse in his space so at rehearsals I play the 900, gig the 7 pro. I think I know them both EXTREMELY well at this point. The 7 pro just sits better live, fills the room, cuts in a band mix, is loud, and delivers. Mine is a Rev C00 and has never given me a hiccup.
The 900 sounds insane in a small set up, in a bedroom etc. HUGE bottom end and sounds sweet and defined on it's own. I'm a live player though- don't woodshed much and always play live with bands of all kinds of lineups. Never could get the 900 to cut live and my band mates always complained of my lack of presence and clarity (first time in my career).
Maybe I've just been lucky with my 7 pro regarding the cut out issues, and I guess I'm thankful for that, but she's a damn nice amp, damn loud, and has fantastic thick, warm, rich tone.
Ah 763 watts. Not quite 1000 watts is it!
Funny how those other companies you mention do that. Even though they are pretty new to the game. I guess ampeg can rely on the SVT name.
But while other factors come into play regarding perceived volume. Over stating an amps capabilities is just plain unethical.
Coupled with the lack of quality control. Tone goes only so far and there are many amps that can get you great tone without the worry that it could cut out at the worst possible time.
Don't send this off into the thread-locking direction of dumping on it for test results.
I agree with the so-called "rms power" output as one of the few partly meaningful but at least standardized ways to rate an amp. Everyone can test the same way and get (or not get) the same results.
If a certain power is claimed, it ought to be available. And it should be available on every example of the amp, not just on "some" units where the tolerances are such as to allow it.
But, don't mistake it for any sort of reality...... anything you can really USE on the gig.... For the gig, "rms power" (not an engineering term) is a worthless and totally BS rating.
You cannot USE more than 1 /10 to 1/4 of the "rms" rating on the gig, unless you have a good compressor/limiter, or unless you have lots of tolerance for distortion.
An amp with a very high peak power capability, but a power rating of less than half that of a different amp on an "rms" basis, could easily "stomp" that other "higher powered" amp into oblivion in terms of volume. It could be made so as to "sound like" an amp of 3 to 5 times the power.... a difference you would surely notice. Apparently such amps exist....
So don't get too hung up on the power rating.... it's really what it SOUNDS like that counts.... There is an aspect of a company's tolerance for "marketing untruth", but it may be that different examples of any amp may vary considerably in power, and they tested some that DID put out the rated power.
The difference between 763W and 1000 is about 55V vs 63V......at 4 ohms. roughly 10% in voltage output.
I agree with the so-called "rms power" output as one of the few partly meaningful but at least standardized ways to rate an amp. Everyone can test the same way and get (or not get) the same results.
If a certain power is claimed, it ought to be available. And it should be available on every example of the amp, not just on "some" units where the tolerances are such as to allow it.
But, don't mistake it for any sort of reality...... anything you can really USE on the gig.... For the gig, "rms power" (not an engineering term) is a worthless and totally BS rating.
You cannot USE more than 1 /10 to 1/4 of the "rms" rating on the gig, unless you have a good compressor/limiter, or unless you have lots of tolerance for distortion.
An amp with a very high peak power capability, but a power rating of less than half that of a different amp on an "rms" basis, could easily "stomp" that other "higher powered" amp into oblivion in terms of volume. It could be made so as to "sound like" an amp of 3 to 5 times the power.... a difference you would surely notice. Apparently such amps exist....
So don't get too hung up on the power rating.... it's really what it SOUNDS like that counts.... There is an aspect of a company's tolerance for "marketing untruth", but it may be that different examples of any amp may vary considerably in power, and they tested some that DID put out the rated power.
The difference between 763W and 1000 is about 55V vs 63V......at 4 ohms. roughly 10% in voltage output.
True, but thats the only way this amp is advertised, " it puts out a ferocious killowatt of pure Ampeg power and tone " Other amps with the same power mention tone and sound first, then talk about power output.
Besides isn't RMS- Root mean squared supposed to mean continuous power not peak ?
My advice for any music stores selling both Ampeg and Mesa boogie Heads would be this. Don't put a pro 7 head too close to a carbine head on the sales floor, the carbine head might bite it.
There's history involved with some of the posters and some will post just to stir up the hornets nest. Just do a post search on specific TB'ers to get a history lesson. If you get annoyed with any TB'er just put them on ignore. I don't doubt that some create threads regarding this amp just to watch the poo flying. There are probably a hundred threads on this amp and if one would just use the search function they could probably find all the info they need.
BTW...I've never had an issue with my 7PRO.
And that is just it.
Just because one test got 1000 watts does not mean you can state that it has been proven to be a 1000 watt amp. Another test could only get 763 watts out of this amp.
I am not going to bury my head in the sand and just believe the highest rated test because that's what I want to believe.
But I also agree that rated watts is only a part of an amps perceived volume. It is just a pity the marketing is misleading
From what I hear with the 7Pro's, the units are either Lemon or No Lemon. So if you got a Lemon, no big deal, swap it out and most likely the replacement will be Fine!
One friend personally has a newer one and he cranks it very loud, and its given him no issues. From reading opinions on it here, people either experience problems early or not at all. So, I'd just replace it at GC.
One friend personally has a newer one and he cranks it very loud, and its given him no issues. From reading opinions on it here, people either experience problems early or not at all. So, I'd just replace it at GC.
I started this thread and was not looking for a history lesson or a p#$%ing contest just simply stating what I had bought and what had happened to it. I like the sound of these amps and they have enough power for me if it's 700 or 1000.I dont have a clue on a lot of the tech stuff that has been dicussed on this thread or other threads about this amp.I should have my new one when I get back home thur night and if it works i'll be tickled pink.
BIG +1
It's unfortunate that threads like these inevitably turn into p*^ing matches, but without fail, they do.
I have no complaints about my 7. whether it is 1000 watts or 600. It is loud as hell (on the rare occasion tha I have needed it to be) and not being a tech, I couldn't care less.
I leave that to all the electrical engineers on this site
BIG +1
It's unfortunate that threads like these inevitably turn into p*^ing matches, but without fail, they do.
I have no complaints about my 7. whether it is 1000 watts or 600. It is loud as hell (on the rare occasion tha I have needed it to be) and not being a tech, I couldn't care less.
I leave that to all the electrical engineers on this site
The only people I see getting upset are the people who own one, if yours works great fine, we are trying to help the 50 percent who get a bad one.
People who aren't techs about such things are the reason subpar products are put out on the market. Marketing people know that for the vast majority if the color of the head is cool and it sounds good at GC than thats all that matters.
And don't blame TB for all the bad press on this head either, go to GC website and read the reviews they have for their customers who bought one.
As my grandfather used to say only a squeeky door gets oiled, so people have to talk about it. I guess no one from Ampeg monitors this site if they did we might get some answers.
Sorry, but I disagree. this post ( like many others ) starts out with the best of intentions and invariably goes into a bickering session about wattage and tests. I've seen it happen time after time and usually by the same folks
Well if your like the guy on GC review he didn't have problems either, because he was running his with 1 8ohm cab and the volume at half because he said he knew it would happen eventually and wanted to delay it as long as possible.
For those of you who have no problems how bout telling us what year you bought yours and what Rev fix it was.
