• 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 really 960 watts?

#62
byacey said:
It could well be that it consumes 96o watts of AC line current to produce 300 watts of audio output power, although 660 watts for the heaters and pilot bulb seems a little far fetched.
Click to expand...
The quiescent power dissipation of the output stage is ~ a couple hundred watts by itself.

Also, it's not uncommon to specify as VI rather than watts, or to simplify VI to watts by ignoring power factor. If PF is say .8, than stated watts would be reduced by 20% from the stated value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Happy Camper
#63
Jughead6 said:
Not in terms of wattage but as a method of energy efficiency.

After all, don't we want to have better or at least equivalent performance with lower wattage? We do with cars, washing machines and almost everything else in our lives.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with it other than the dishonesty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcnach, Jughead6 and Rabidhamster
#66
Red Planet said:
It seems TC is not the only one on this bandwagon. There are a lot of amps out there claiming all kinds of crazy wattage ratings now, hence the thread. Isn't an SVT really a 1,000 watts by today's standards?

Notice all these new fangled, carnsarned high powered thingamajigs aint no louder than an old Acoustic 360.
Click to expand...
fixed it for you.
you also keep forgetting to add .... "you kids get offa mah lawn" to your posts and replies. it really helps others to understand the context of your often puzzling posts.:laugh:
 
#67
JimmyM said:
I have no problem with it other than the dishonesty.
Click to expand...
hmmm ... it appears that many/most SVTs with modern tubes scope between 240-270w ... not 300 as the Ampeg marketing blah blah blah screams ...
"This dynamically powerful all-tube bass amp delivers a thunderous 300-Watts of unsurpassed quality, reliability and tonal flexibility"

I know 300watts sounds better than 270ish in ad copy, but isn't that also somewhat dishonest ?

and the TC thing ... really ? after 4 or 5 years is this still a thing ?
 
#69
pfschim said:
hmmm ... it appears that many/most SVTs with modern tubes scope between 240-270w ... not 300 as the Ampeg marketing blah blah blah screams ...
"This dynamically powerful all-tube bass amp delivers a thunderous 300-Watts of unsurpassed quality, reliability and tonal flexibility"

I know 300watts sounds better than 270ish in ad copy, but isn't that also somewhat dishonest ?

and the TC thing ... really ? after 4 or 5 years is this still a thing ?
Click to expand...
I am no tech expert, but I am pretty sure that if an SVT tests that low, it's because of weakish power tubes or the tester is testing to a lower THD standard than Ampeg, which is 5%. Not to mention that other things can cause variances in readings, such as inaccurate test equipment and methods or different voltages that deviate from 120v. But just for fun's sake, let's assume that the best you can get out of an SVT is 270w at <5% THD rather than the 300w they say. That's imperceptible to the ear and majorly different than calling a 240w RMS amp 750w.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bass 45, pcake and mcnach
#70
pfschim said:
hmmm ... it appears that many/most SVTs with modern tubes scope between 240-270w ... not 300 as the Ampeg marketing blah blah blah screams ...
"This dynamically powerful all-tube bass amp delivers a thunderous 300-Watts of unsurpassed quality, reliability and tonal flexibility"

I know 300watts sounds better than 270ish in ad copy, but isn't that also somewhat dishonest ?

and the TC thing ... really ? after 4 or 5 years is this still a thing ?
Click to expand...


A healthy SVT has no trouble making 300W (and more). They problem is making 300W at 3% THD, which is the spec stated in the service manual. It's very rare to find reports of an amp meeting this spec, and when you do it is usually running some prized NOS tubes. The bench tests that claim 240-270W typically are measured at around 5% THD and these amps make around 350W at 10% THD.

I don't really worry about it too much, but the wattage rating of many tubes amps is inflated IMHO. Yes most models will make the specified wattage, but only if pushed fairly deep into distortion.

The Mesa 400+ webpage claims the amp will make 500W of transient power, which I believe translates to 250W clean. I found one TB member who claimed his made 270W, but a distortion figure was not given.
 
#74
Red Planet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aw duh. I just realized what you meant. Never mind. :D
 
#75
JimmyM said:
I am no tech expert, but I am pretty sure that if an SVT tests that low, it's because of weakish power tubes or the tester is testing to a lower THD standard than Ampeg, which is 5%. Not to mention that other things can cause variances in readings, such as inaccurate test equipment and methods or different voltages that deviate from 120v. But just for fun's sake, let's assume that the best you can get out of an SVT is 270w at <5% THD rather than the 300w they say. That's imperceptible to the ear and majorly different than calling a 240w RMS amp 750w.
Click to expand...
There was a change in the THD threshold which may explain some of the challenge, but there's so much variability in tubes (including driver/PI tubes) that the same amp may achieve different rated power with different tube sets. 270 watts RMS at 5%THD may be 300 watts under the same conditions with a different set of tubes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wasnex
#76
JimmyM said:
I am no tech expert, but I am pretty sure that if an SVT tests that low, it's because of weakish power tubes or the tester is testing to a lower THD standard than Ampeg, which is 5%. Not to mention that other things can cause variances in readings, such as inaccurate test equipment and methods or different voltages that deviate from 120v. But just for fun's sake, let's assume that the best you can get out of an SVT is 270w at <5% THD rather than the 300w they say. That's imperceptible to the ear and majorly different than calling a 240w RMS amp 750w.
Click to expand...
I took my SVT rating info from a posting (#7) by wasnex upthread ... (I find wasnex to be pretty factual and reasonable with technical info overall). Not trying to throw any shade at SVT's ... I am reacting more to the OP's use of the very tired TC 450/power rating trope and then its extension into the thread ... which is kind of foolish to begin with.

my bad, I should just put this guy in my very small ignore list as he has really gone on a tear lately with trollish sorts of posts.

peace Mr. JM
 
  • Like
Reactions: FRoss6788
#77
Wasnex said:
5% is from for the VR product manual. The CL product manuals say 3% and the service manual for the vintage amps say 3%. I think the only thing that has changed is the quality of the tubes.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...never noticed that before. I did just look up the VR and assumed it was the same for both.
 
#78
tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novarocker, FRoss6788, JGR and 3 others
#79
JimmyM said:
Hmmm...never noticed that before. I did just look up the VR and assumed it was the same for both.
Click to expand...

I believe there was a thread on this disparity of few years ago. I don't think the output section of the VR is downgraded. I think Ampeg changed the ratings for the VR because 3% is unrealistic with modern tubes. Most MI benchtests I have seen have been at 5% anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcnach and JimmyM

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back