• 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.

Big E Speakers Part 4 - Quadraphenia

#1,641
Just wanted to stop by with an _unsolicited_ testimonial to Mike's customer support.

I've got an MAS112 from the early production run, 18sound/standard mids/full grille. It immediately became my gig cab, and I've happily been working it hard for many months in a bar band with no FOH support for instruments. (It's done yeoman work covering all the rooms we work, and we get loud enough.) One day, woodshedding at home, I noticed it had developed a buzz on notes around the octave on the G string.

So I called Mike, and he told me to send it back for a repair, and he'd turn it around quickly.

Indeed he did.

IME this is top-shelf customer support. No hassle, no blah blah--just a problem fixed, promptly, one professional standing behind his product used by another professional.

I only have two hands, or I'd give it three thumbs up. :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: eff-clef, Stephen Regier, billyfalconer and 7 others
#1,643
Maybe it’s just me but I came up with a crazy (or a good) idea while in the john yesterday (does that happen to anyone else?) and I thought I’d share here for a sanity check.

So recently I picked up this Mesa Buster 210 combo of my local CL for a really good price. It’s a cool little amp but quite unwieldy as many Buster fans agree – some like to re-house the head in its own separate cabinet. In addition to the Buster, I have a M6 212 combo I acquired at the beginning of the year. It is an excellent piece of equipment and has all but mitigated most of my GAS; it does everything I need it to do and it’s easy to roll around (and has a cover, fits in my car, etc.)

If $$ were no object, I wonder if Mike would build a custom 210 Flex with space on top for me to mount the Buster in? Add a towel bar and wheels like the M6 combo so I can wheel it around, get a cover made for it – how does that sound?

I know the market is leaning towards lightweight stuff – I get that – and that MAS is working on adding some sound modules for some cabs (or so I’ve heard) but my 400 now ‘officially’ belongs to my church along with the fridge I had so the 215 sickness is subsiding (unless, of course, I put the Buster on top of a 215, hmmmm…)

Thoughts? Am I nuts? I like my two combos – not really interested in unloading them for a single MAS rig as I have been able to keep the Buster at home and out of my wife’s way for the most part. But I haven’t heard one in person yet so that may change if I were to do so. With other obligations it would be a challenge to justify such a build right now – and with all of the innovations that Mike keeps generating it is difficult to decide on one in particular. Still, it’s fun to imagine such a creation…

Eric
 
#1,644
Eric,
I think a Flex210 with an "airhead" compartment for an amp, with wheels and towel bar would be sick, sick, sick, and awesome to boot.
I'm not sure I'd go with the Buster head, though. The Flex can handle (and likes) more than 200 watts.
 
#1,645
It would be cool, although I don't know how practical, given that standardized sized heads (19") are becoming less and less standard in lieu of various sized micro heads. but the concept of a 'modular combo' sure is appealing
 
#1,646
kesslari said:
Eric,
I think a Flex210 with an "airhead" compartment for an amp, with wheels and towel bar would be sick, sick, sick, and awesome to boot.
I'm not sure I'd go with the Buster head, though. The Flex can handle (and likes) more than 200 watts.
Click to expand...
The idea was based upon what I have on hand, and @tombowlus told me a MAS cab with a 400 (also 200 watts) would slay. I think my Carbine would also power one well. But yeah, mo power would be mo better.

J.Wolf said:
It would be cool, although I don't know how practical, given that standardized sized heads (19") are becoming less and less standard in lieu of various sized micro heads. but the concept of a 'modular combo' sure is appealing
Click to expand...
Agreed, for me this would be a custom request but if Mike were to design an integrated solution that could accommodate a variety of micros or be concealed if no amp was installed (make it blend in with the cabinet) that would be sweet.
 
#1,647
I could do it no sweat. Just pm me. In regards to the previous posts---Steve and I were talking about possibly offering custom options for ---let's say--a custom wider 112 if someone didn't dig the "muffin top" aspect of a wider head on a 112. On a 112, wider would likely sound better---bigger driver chamber. I make the 112 at that width to keep it as small and manageable as possible, but I'm not adverse to size it to match an amp width. I can't go narrower or more shallow, though. Since they're all handmade by me, customization wouldn't cost a ton more. I'm also open to figure out an amp space on top.

BTW---I got a Kevin Shaw amp----of the tube amps I've tried it's my favorite. And as Tom Bowlus has suggested I'm going to swap out the KT88's for KT120's. Kevin builds more conservatively than most and only pushes the four KT88's for 150 watts. He said that the KT120's should bump it up to 200 watts. It cranks the hell out of all my speakers with just 150.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 31HZ, tombowlus, John D Harris and 2 others
#1,648
From last night at a outdoor gig at the Biltmore estate......
The combo of the MAS 66 AND 110 SUB SOUNDED MASSIVE!
I love how I can play so relaxed with the right hand and it sounds like I am digging in..
Effortless!
 

Attachments

  • 11162447_10205577624855023_1300206519580166319_n.jpg
    11162447_10205577624855023_1300206519580166319_n.jpg
    63.6 KB · Views: 117
  • Like
Reactions: MrBEAR
#1,652
Mike Arnopol said:
BTW---I got a Kevin Shaw amp----of the tube amps I've tried it's my favorite. And as Tom Bowlus has suggested I'm going to swap out the KT88's for KT120's. Kevin builds more conservatively than most and only pushes the four KT88's for 150 watts. He said that the KT120's should bump it up to 200 watts. It cranks the hell out of all my speakers with just 150.
Click to expand...

Mike, the Reeves is running the quad of KT88's pretty hard which is why Tom was able to squeeze a tiny bit more power (IIRC it was like 12% which is almost in the margin of error) with the KT120's - the tubes were the limiting factor so to speak. You're not going to get more power doing that with the Shaw because the transformers are the limiting factor - running the quad at 150 watts is conservative and keeps the required voltages down. Tubes don't *make* more power - it requires higher voltages and more current (VA) capacity. It's easy to get 100+ watts from a pair of KT88's, but you need to run a *dual rail* power supply which he may or may not be doing. I only reiterate this because the current production KT88 is also much better, more reliable tube. You could try the 120's for a different tone, but since it has a different stack than the Reeves it may not be what you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: edbass
#1,654
JGR said:
Mike, the Reeves is running the quad of KT88's pretty hard which is why Tom was able to squeeze a tiny bit more power (IIRC it was like 12% which is almost in the margin of error) with the KT120's - the tubes were the limiting factor so to speak. You're not going to get more power doing that with the Shaw because the transformers are the limiting factor - running the quad at 150 watts is conservative and keeps the required voltages down. Tubes don't *make* more power - it requires higher voltages and more current (VA) capacity. It's easy to get 100+ watts from a pair of KT88's, but you need to run a *dual rail* power supply which he may or may not be doing. I only reiterate this because the current production KT88 is also much better, more reliable tube. You could try the 120's for a different tone, but since it has a different stack than the Reeves it may not be what you want.
Click to expand...

Amen. This answers what seems to be a popular misconception about tube amps. The tubes themselves are just another component in the circuit; without the "iron" (on both ends) to pass the current, if you are looking to increase output by just upgrading tubes all you have really accomplished is spending money. You could even lose headroom, in the example of replacing the KT88's with KT120's the heaters alone draw +/- 20% more current from the available potential of the power supply.
Also, even if the energy potential exists in the transformers, it's not a case of "plug and play". The huge OEM iron in the Reeves had the capability to deliver the current, but I'm pretty sure the Mr. Bowlus had his Reeves C225's power supply circuit modified to feed the KT120's the current they needed to boost the output.

When Reeves began delivering the C225, the C400 was already in the planning stage. To keep the price point as reasonable as possible, Reeves wanted to use as many common parts as possible to help with the economy of scale. Same head case and same chassis were a couple of the design specifications, so the C225 has an "overkill" gauged chassis capable of handling the additional weight of the C400, and with six output tube holes; two more than were required for the C225.
As soon as the impending six KT88 C400 was announced, Reeves started getting requests for the "400 watt mod" from C225 owners. I saw mention of folks here on TB discussing it also, as if just adding a pair of KT88's would boost the output to 400 watts.
It also takes about 30 more pounds of iron.

All of this has me thinking though... I think I'll order a quartet of KT150's for my AC30 head. Should make for a 40 lb, all tube 400+ watt SVT killer, I'll be rich!!!!
I just hope I can physically fit those big 150's in the AC30 box.
 
#1,655
I'm sure you guys know better than me about the tubes. I was just quoting from a conversation with Kevin Shaw. It's his amp but maybe he doesn't know! I don't think Tom did anything different than correcting the bias. He told me that the big difference was tone. I'm really ignorant as far as tube stuff but Tom was telling me that he thought that the 88's were more scooped in the midrange and preferred the tonal difference. I do know that Kevin is using really huge custom Mercury Magnetics transformers. Anyhoo---it might be worth trying if the tonal balance is improved.
 
Last edited:
#1,656
Mike Arnopol said:
I'm sure you guys know better than me about the tubes. I was just quoting from a conversation with Kevin Shaw. It's his amp but maybe he doesn't know! I don't think Tom did anything different than correcting the bias. He told me that the big difference was tone. I'm really ignorant as far as tube stuff but Tom was telling me that he thought that the 88's were more scooped in the midrange and preferred the tonal difference. I do know that Kevin is using really huge custom Mercury Magnetics transformers. Anyhoo---it might be worth trying if the tonal balance is improved.
Click to expand...

To clarify our conversation, Mike and I did discuss the fact that the transformers in the C225 were most definitely able to drive KT120's, and Mike said that Shaw said his transformers were up to the task, as well. I mentioned that in the C225, there was not a very noticeable increase in output/volume, but there was a very noticeable difference in tone. At least in the C225, the KT120's were less scooped in the mids than the KT88's (or at least the particular KT88s which were in my C225).
 
#1,657
tombowlus said:
To clarify our conversation, Mike and I did discuss the fact that the transformers in the C225 were most definitely able to drive KT120's, and Mike said that Shaw said his transformers were up to the task, as well. I mentioned that in the C225, there was not a very noticeable increase in output/volume, but there was a very noticeable difference in tone. At least in the C225, the KT120's were less scooped in the mids than the KT88's (or at least the particular KT88s which were in my C225).
Click to expand...

So, the KT120's were "plug 'n play"? I thought I read/heard something about adjustments to the circuit, was it just a bias adjustment?

Mike Arnopol said:
I'm sure you guys know better than me about the tubes. I was just quoting from a conversation with Kevin Shaw. It's his amp but maybe he doesn't know! I don't think Tom did anything different than correcting the bias. He told me that the big difference was tone. I'm really ignorant as far as tube stuff but Tom was telling me that he thought that the 88's were more scooped in the midrange and preferred the tonal difference. I do know that Kevin is using really huge custom Mercury Magnetics transformers. Anyhoo---it might be worth trying if the tonal balance is improved.
Click to expand...

As far as "you guys" goes, my comments were solely triggered by JGR's sentence "Tubes don't *make* more power - it requires higher voltages and more current (VA) capacity."
I don't even know what a "Shaw" amplifier is, and I wasn't insinuating that it could or couldn't utilize KT120's. I'll Google Shaw.
Mercury Magnetics makes nice stuff though, and they certainly have the capacity to build an overkill transformer for a quad of KT88's that will drive KT120's. It would probably be a question of whether Shaw has their transformers custom built for their application, or if they're using "off the shelf" MM stock, but I certainly hope this Kevin Shaw DOES indeed "know" regardless. ;)
 
#1,658
Overbuilt is always kind of vague, but for power transformers, I'd take it as excess current capacity so you will get less power supply sag under load. The KT120's have higher dissipation ratings, but to get significantly more power, you need higher voltages which the PT as designed isn't going to supply simply by changing the tubes.

If my fuzzy calculations are correct, you need around a 560V supply (will vary a bit depending on the OT's primary impedance of course), and that will sag to around 510V loaded to make ~150 watts from a quad - bumping it to 200 requires another 70 volts or so, and if you aren't running separate taps for the plates and screens, will likely eat tubes pretty quick.

Hence why eeking those additional 50 watts becomes very complex and expensive, and as such, the 150 mark is a smart design choice. :)

As I noted before, it might be cool to experiment with the 120's to see if you like the tone, but that should be the primary reason - nobody should be telling you that you will get a significant boost in output power.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back