• 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.

Bugera Veyron BV1001T

#61
Plus, audio amplification is not as "sensitive" as other industries, where there may be some law or regulation, or even enough public attention imposing standardised testing and measurement procedures. (Even then, fuel consumption figures are always "optimistic"...).

But things have certainly improved a lot compared to the era of PMPO watts. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: agedhorse
#62
agedhorse said:
Good question.

No, it’s not required and a manufacturer COULD make up their own metric. In some areas (like higher end bass amps and real pro commercial pro audio amps, RMS is the metric. Additional information such as duty cycle (started by the really large pro audio amps) may also be included or factored into the metric, and power limitations at high frequencies may also be designed into the spec.

While some conspiracy theorists may think this is cheating, what they fail to take into account is the relative power handling of high frequency drivers.

Even 200 watts worth of HF driver (a lot) is dwarfed by a 4000 watt RMS power amp, so at frequencies where these devices are used, the power is severely limited within the amp. This also allows for a slightly lighter weight, smaller output stage since the high frequency stabilization components don’t have to be so large only not to have any of that excess capacity ever used.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: agedhorse
#63
Boneless said:
Plus, audio amplification is not as "sensitive" as other industries, where there may be some law or regulation, or even enough public attention imposing standardised testing and measurement procedures. (Even then, fuel consumption figures are always "optimistic"...).

But things have certainly improved a lot compared to the era of PMPO watts. :D
Click to expand...
There are a few manufactured that have gone back to using peak and PMPO metrics in their marketing, just a little better disguised…
 
#64
agedhorse said:
There are a few manufactured that have gone back to using peak and PMPO metrics in their marketing, just a little better disguised…
Click to expand...

Not sure what Bugera is using in their marketing to describe the Veyron line's output, be it Peak/PMPO or not.

Regardless, it's dubious b***s***.

(I remember shopping for a stereo in the early'70s when a stereo manufacturer's marketing material showed it's peak power in bold and its RMS in small print)
 
Last edited:
#65
Pocket Dave said:
Not sure what Bugera is using in their marketing to describe the Veyron line's output, be it Peak/PMPO or not.

Regardless, it's dubious b***s***.

(I remember shopping for a stereo in the early'70s when a stereo manufacturer's marketing material showed it's peak power in bold and its RMS in small print)
Click to expand...
That’s the point, we don’t know what metric is being used, therefore it’s difficult to compare those numbers to those who clearly state the metric they are using.
 
#66
agedhorse said:
That’s the point, we don’t know what metric is being used, therefore it’s difficult to compare those numbers to those who clearly state the metric they are using.
Click to expand...

Yep. I guess what I meant to say is I'm not sure either. I kind of suspect Veyron's metric is not based on anything, other than maybe a passing thought, "what are they going to do, report us to the wattage police?"
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Clark W, S-Bigbottom and agedhorse
#68
Boneless said:
Anyway, I ordered it. I can return it in 30 days if I don't like it.

Bugera Behringer states that its 1/8th power consumption is 110W. Assuming, dunno, 10W for the preamp and 80% efficiency, that works out at about 600W RMS. Of course it's a gross estimation.
Click to expand...

I had both Veyron amps at the same time for a while but I eventually sold the T. I’ve still got my M and I’m still pleased with it. Of the five amps that I own four are 800 watts RMS at 4 ohms. My Veyron M compares very favorably to each of my other amps with regards to performance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DWBass
#69
ebozzz said:
I had both Veyron amps at the same time for a while but I eventually sold the T. I’ve still got my M and I’m still pleased with it. Of the five amps that I own four are 800 watts RMS ay 4 ohms. My Veyron M compares very favorably to each of my other amps with regards to performance.
Click to expand...
Apparently a lot of people prefer the M to the T. Why? It is an even better value proposition, mind you. But as regards solid state heads, I have a very nice GK 800RB. Honestly I wanted to have a more modern head as a secondary amp (even in sound - the 800RB is quite rolled off in the treble and bass).
 
#70
Boneless said:
Apparently a lot of people prefer the M to the T. Why? It is an even better value proposition, mind you. But as regards solid state heads, I have a very nice GK 800RB. Honestly I wanted to have a more modern head as a secondary amp (even in sound - the 800RB is quite rolled off in the treble and bass).
Click to expand...

For me, I think that the preamp on the M is a little more flexible and it’s also less expensive. Not sure what sort of tone that you’re seeking but both Veyrons are pretty clean sounding. Neither really does grit but the T does have more warmth.

During the time that I owned it, I just had some other options with more warmth that also gave me a little dirt. I don’t know if I’ll ever buy one new again at something similar to the current pricing but if I find a used one at the right price I may not be able to resist it!
 
#72
Boneless said:
Clean is fine. I want something with a little tubey give but with a full-range power amp. This looks like it could be an option.
Click to expand...

If you find it's not tubey enough, no need to go full-range power amp (or full tube). An Aguilar Tone Hammer preamp pedal or used Aggie TH preamp/direct box will get you some warm grit with a wide range of bass and mid response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DWBass
#73
So, I received it yesterday. I tried it out with my headphones only, I will try it out on my GK 2x12" Neo cabinet tomorrow but I can probably evaluate the preamp better through my headphones anyway.

The input pad definitely darkens the tone, probably drops the input impedance. Honestly, I wouldn’t obsess over the clip light. I can get the preamp to distort more with the pad engaged and the gain cranked, even if the LED never lights up. Without the pad it distorts in a nicer way, so it’s clearly hitting a different gain stage. You can get a decent amount of dirt out of it, but it’s not a high-gain amp. Sweet spot for the gain is roughly between 9 o’clock and 1 o’clock.

The compressor works, but most of the usable range is in the first little bit of the knob’s travel. By halfway it’s far too much for my taste, though I’m not into heavy compression anyway. To be fair, that’s been my experience with pretty much every bass compressor I’ve tried, pedal or amp: once you’re past a certain point, it’s way over the top. This one is very squashy, feels like a pretty high ratio, and once it kicks in it clamps hard. Around 9 o’clock it’s noticeable and sounds good. My pedal compressor is set up differently (shorter attack/release, lower ratio), so I’d still stick with that, but the amp’s comp is perfectly serviceable. The knob controls threshold, not input gain, so more compression means less volume. That’s probably more "honest" and the right way to do it since you really hear the compression working instead of the volume rising (which makes everything sound nicer), but it’s not as intuitive.

The EQ is nice and musical, not over the top. You can tweak it without it going weird or artificial too quickly. Feels like it’s got a limited range, maybe ±6 to 9 dB tops, which is fine by me — I’ve never boosted or cut more than 6 dB on bass anyway. “Flat” or close to it seems to be with the bass rolled back slightly, about 10 o’clock. I like the mid control, 2.5kHz is where I see myself using it at mostly, but 600 and 220Hz can be good places to cut (especially 600Hz) sometimes. The big master knob steps through in clicks and makes a bit of noise when you turn it, but I think it’s meant to be left in one place while you adjust volume with the other control (there are two).

For €355 brand new, I’m happy. It’s not a miracle amp head, but it does the job well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ebozzz
#74
And... I added a full-length review here:

Bugera Veyron Tube BV1001T
Boneless

Review by Boneless on the head 'Bugera Veyron Tube BV1001T'

5.00 star(s)
Pros
  • Loud!
  • Nice tubey tone
  • Convenient form factor
  • Cheap!
Cons
  • Bass EQ control is not very effective
  • The stepped master volume control is a bit noisy
  • The clip LED lights up too easily
  • The compressor control is too sensitive
I've recently bought this head to keep as a backup to my GK 800RB head (which needs some TLC, since some of the switches are temperamental and I feel it is a bit more hissy than it used to be). Of course the power rating makes little sense (it is stated as a 2000W peak amplifier, 4 ohms...
  • Boneless
 
  • Like
Reactions: DWBass
#75
Boneless said:
Apparently a lot of people prefer the M to the T. Why? It is an even better value proposition, mind you. But as regards solid state heads, I have a very nice GK 800RB. Honestly I wanted to have a more modern head as a secondary amp (even in sound - the 800RB is quite rolled off in the treble and bass).
Click to expand...
From my experience trying both, the T version had a noticeable fuzziness that I could not dial out.
I don't know what "tubey" means, but to my ears it didn't sound particularly vintage or like a throw-back.
It felt like something was robbing power when you played it.
The M version didn't do that. For any price, they sound decent. Just don't expect anything really mind blowing from them.

EDITED for correction of fat-finger typing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop
#77
Boneless said:
The knob controls threshold, not input gain, so more compression means less volume. That’s probably more "honest" and the right way to do it since you really hear the compression working instead of the volume rising (which makes everything sound nicer), but it’s not as intuitive.
Click to expand...
It's nothing to do with it being honest. It's just the bare minimum they were willing to engineer in to meet the price point. On the TC amps, the compressors all have built in relative make-up gain in the one-knob controls to mitigate (or minimize) that.
 
#79
frankie5string said:
It's nothing to do with it being honest. It's just the bare minimum they were willing to engineer in to meet the price point. On the TC amps, the compressors all have built in relative make-up gain in the one-knob controls to mitigate (or minimize) that.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's necessarily a cost-cutting measure. It can be a design choice. It's not hard to design a compressor with a fixed threshold (and the pot controls the incoming gain into the compressor), especially if you have good headroom like with an amp's power supply. The preamp outputs quite a strong signal, and you don't really need to max the "small" volume. That way, you can use the latter to make up the gain reduction if and when you engage the compressor.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back