Ampeg SVT really 960 watts?

[okcrum]

I didn't know there was a tube SVT model that had the same topology as anything TC makes.

What was that about understanding stuff?

Really? Based on what I know about the details of the amp, testing several in depth, and having worked with its primary designer in a "past life", I would say this is electrically impossible. I don't think it can even make 300 watts RMS at 20Hz within it's published THD 3% rating. I believe that you may have made an error in your measurements or calculations. If it were to deliver 392 watts RMS, various parts within the amp would be coming apart at the seams due to over-voltage.

I am in no way disrespecting the amp either, I hold both the amp and Bill Hughes in very high regard.

You can get some pretty good apparent power into a reactive load if you're not careful...

 

[REV]

20hz?

 

[fourstringburn]

My SVT is rated at 2500 watts… SVT-8 Pro.

 

[two fingers]

With today's power ratings should the Ampeg SVT be rated at 960 watts?
Using TC and some of the other manufactures as a bench mark.

Keep it to the topic and none of that but you dont understand stuff.
No this is not a troll so lets keep name calling out of the thread.
I ask the simple question.

I don't understand the question. Where did you come up with that figure?

 

[JW56789]

I honestly don't want to seem snarky about this, but is he reading the current draw decal they put on most amps where the AC cable enters the chassis ? ?

 

[drumvsbass]

Well, I saw these numbers on a scope at MM electronics Winnipeg. According to the tech, it did 300 watts easy and then we pinned it to see where the power started to clip the top of the sine wave, around 392 watts. I had the amp in for repair, (and by repair I mean to have it re-soldered from input to output because every connection had shaken loose from road abuse). The tech says to me something like 'Well this head should do about 150 watts eh?'... I don't know if he miscalculated something, but I gave him a look and put a friendly wager down that the head would do 300 watts. Which it of course did. The tech checked the power tubes and figured that in the power tube section, one of the pins on each of the power tubes was 2x the voltage of what HE was expecting it to be. And that's my story. That amp is safe and sound in my living room, like a sleeping dragon. This is merely what an amp tech repairman showed me on a scope in the shop. He was pretty blown away by it as well and had every reason to have it not be true. In the end, the only takeaway is, 'How loud is it? Loud enough.'

960 Watts, I don't think so. 300, most definitely.

 

[pfschim]

With today's power ratings should the Ampeg SVT be rated at 960 watts?
Using TC and some of the other manufactures as a bench mark.

Keep it to the topic and none of that but you dont understand stuff.
No this is not a troll so lets keep name calling out of the thread.
I ask the simple question.

dude, here's another example of that "tumbling down a flight of stairs with an 810" head injury coming back to haunt you (and us)

 

[pfschim]

Oh I see. I didn't think anybody worried about that crap anymore?

the OP has kind of a hard-on about some MI manufacturer (besides TC Electronics) but does not want to get into hot water with the mods so he uses this kind of smoke screen silly b.s. post to get his ya ya's out here on TB.

 

[pfschim]

No.

and there's your answer OP

 

[5StringBlues]

 

[Happy Camper]

According to [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

POWER REQUIREMENTS10A (Normal Blow), 115VAC, 60Hz, 460VA
SIZE (W x H x D) AND WEIGHT24” W x 11.5” H x 13” D, 80 lbs

It's _claimed_ to draw 460VA so the power out is not more. That and not heavier than a decent dog.

 

[agedhorse]

According to [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

POWER REQUIREMENTS10A (Normal Blow), 115VAC, 60Hz, 460VA
SIZE (W x H x D) AND WEIGHT24” W x 11.5” H x 13” D, 80 lbs

It's _claimed_ to draw 460VA so the power out is not more. That and not heavier than a decent dog.

Can't use this logic because there is a duty cycle factored into the average power consumption.

I have detailed the standard calculations for this several times before.

 

[JimmyM]

I honestly don't want to seem snarky about this, but is he reading the current draw decal they put on most amps where the AC cable enters the chassis ? ?

HAHA!

Actually, this is a good topic since "tube watts" vs "SS watts" has now added "micro SS watts" to the battle, and the quality of micros is getting up there these days. I can only tell about the four micros I've compared to SVT's for volume...Ampeg PF350, PF800 and SVT 7 Pro, and Markbass Little Mark II (500w). SVT's were Heritage SVT-CL and 810e for the PF heads and 7 Pro, and my 69 SVT into a rented Classic 810e with the Markbass at a soundcheck before anyone else in the band got there to yell at me. Both SVT's were working well and I turned them up to their loudest possible settings while maintaining a clean sound with no audible distortion and compared them with very similar tone settings that I tried to match as close as possible. The micros all operated at 4 ohms, too. Hardly scientific, but for you sticklers out there, my amps rock. In order of wattage...

SVT vs PF350---SVT won but by not as far a margin as you might think. This was kind of close, closer than I expected. But the 350 felt more compressed and gave itself up there at the transition to dirt where the SVT felt like it had a lot left in the tank to give you. Which it did. It wouldn't be clean, but it's there and you can totally feel the difference when you play. But I thought the 350 did respectably. And even though compression is supposed to be a hallmark of tube amps, I thought the SVT's sound way less compressed than any of the micros at its top clean volume.

SVT vs LMII---The LMII barely edged out the SVT for volume, and had a good tone, but to my ears it sounded the most compressed of all the amps. Still, you'd expect a 500w amp to be slightly louder than a 300w amp and it was. Has no transition into dirt whatsoever, though. You either get clean or you get this nasty clipping sound like when you overdrive your cheap digital interface into your computer.

SVT vs PF800---Tonewise, obviously the SVT wins (as always ). But the 800 is obviously going to put out louder and you'll notice it. Definitely not twice as loud, but you'll notice it. You'll also become nauseous if you're like me. I don't know how people can take those kinds of volumes. I'm pretty sure I couldn't reach the end of the 800's volume capability before I had to bail. The SVT is nausea-inducing enough on its own. But the 800 does sound very good and relatively uncompressed for a micro at insane volumes.

SVT vs PF800 vs SVT 7 Pro---I had to lie down for 20 minutes after this test! 7 Pro was another test I bailed on before I could get to the end of its clean volume. Sounded the least compressed of all the lightweights, too. But after all three at once, my brain turned to soggy bran and I couldn't tell you which lightweight was louder.

So my unscientific opinion is that by and large, watts is watts, and if you need more than an SVT and 810 can give you cleanly, you are clearly deranged.

 

[Wasnex]

HAHA!

Actually, this is a good topic since "tube watts" vs "SS watts" has now added "micro SS watts" to the battle, and the quality of micros is getting up there these days. I can only tell about the four micros I've compared to SVT's for volume...Ampeg PF350, PF800 and SVT 7 Pro, and Markbass Little Mark II (500w). SVT's were Heritage SVT-CL and 810e for the PF heads and 7 Pro, and my 69 SVT into a rented Classic 810e with the Markbass at a soundcheck before anyone else in the band got there to yell at me. Both SVT's were working well and I turned them up to their loudest possible settings while maintaining a clean sound with no audible distortion and compared them with very similar tone settings that I tried to match as close as possible. The micros all operated at 4 ohms, too. Hardly scientific, but for you sticklers out there, my amps rock. In order of wattage...

SVT vs PF350---SVT won but by not as far a margin as you might think. This was kind of close, closer than I expected. But the 350 felt more compressed and gave itself up there at the transition to dirt where the SVT felt like it had a lot left in the tank to give you. Which it did. It wouldn't be clean, but it's there and you can totally feel the difference when you play. But I thought the 350 did respectably. And even though compression is supposed to be a hallmark of tube amps, I thought the SVT's sound way less compressed than any of the micros at its top clean volume.

SVT vs LMII---The LMII barely edged out the SVT for volume, and had a good tone, but to my ears it sounded the most compressed of all the amps. Still, you'd expect a 500w amp to be slightly louder than a 300w amp and it was. Has no transition into dirt whatsoever, though. You either get clean or you get this nasty clipping sound like when you overdrive your cheap digital interface into your computer.

SVT vs PF800---Tonewise, obviously the SVT wins (as always ). But the 800 is obviously going to put out louder and you'll notice it. Definitely not twice as loud, but you'll notice it. You'll also become nauseous if you're like me. I don't know how people can take those kinds of volumes. I'm pretty sure I couldn't reach the end of the 800's volume capability before I had to bail. The SVT is nausea-inducing enough on its own. But the 800 does sound very good and relatively uncompressed for a micro at insane volumes.

SVT vs PF800 vs SVT 7 Pro---I had to lie down for 20 minutes after this test! 7 Pro was another test I bailed on before I could get to the end of its clean volume. Sounded the least compressed of all the lightweights, too. But after all three at once, my brain turned to soggy bran and I couldn't tell you which lightweight was louder.

So my unscientific opinion is that by and large, watts is watts, and if you need more than an SVT and 810 can give you cleanly, you are clearly deranged.

Nice objective comparo...you're awesome!

 

[Wasnex]

the OP has kind of a hard-on about some MI manufacturer (besides TC Electronics) but does not want to get into hot water with the mods so he uses this kind of smoke screen silly b.s. post to get his ya ya's out here on TB.

Yeah...I basically decided it was essentially a troll thread and left. See you somewhere else .

 

[Stumbo]

He must be with Carmen San Diego

 

[Nev375]

With today's power ratings...

This is the exact point you lost me OP. 4 words in and I have no idea what the hell you are on about.

 

[Jughead6]

I really like TC amps.

And their methodology in rating their (older) products made sense to me.

 

[MDBass]

With today's power ratings should the Ampeg SVT be rated at 960 watts?
Using TC and some of the other manufactures as a bench mark.

Keep it to the topic and none of that but you dont understand stuff.
No this is not a troll so lets keep name calling out of the thread.
I ask the simple question.

Oh I see.

This is a troll account.

 

[Stumbo]

Keep it to the topic and none of that but you dont understand stuff.
No this is not a troll so lets keep name calling out of the thread.
I ask the simple question.

Simple to you.

With understanding comes great responsibility.