• 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.

China Ampeg???

G

gpcbass

Feb 15, 2010
18
0
#1
Recently I completed my Ampeg SVT 410HE (USA) with a new SVT 15E (China) cabinet. First, the new cabinet was built in a much thinner plywood, not at all so stable as the old one. Second, the speaker was blown after 10 hours of playing. Where is that Ampeg quality thinking. You don't necessarily have to compromise with the quality because of moving the manufacturing abroad.

I'm very dissapointed :hmm:
 
#2
You probably blew the 15 for the obvious reason: a 4x10 and 1x15 is a terrible speaker pairing due to the vast differences is wattage handling. And fwiw, the Baltic birch plywood they're using on the new cabs is thinner because it gives the same strength and durability (probably better actually) than the thicker and heavier osb that was being used on later slm cabs.
 
#3
Quit blaming Ampeg. You probably blew your 15. Was it on the bottom of the stack? Probably. I doubt you heard it distress before it blew under the power of your 6PRO. A single 15 is only equivalent to two ten's, no matter what the old know-it-all guitarists tell you. It was the weakest link in your rig and never was equally matched to that 410. Add another 410HE, Chinese made or not, and prepare to get what you actually wanted when you bought the 15. You can probably still exchange it and plead ignorance.
 
#4
Yes, I blewed the speaker but I expected more from the SVT 15E. I've combined the 410 with other 1x15 speakers without any problems in spite of wattage differences. The GK BLX 115 was really nice, also a 200 W cabinet. Again, I expected much more from the Ampeg 15E for which I payed over $700 (Europe).
 
#5
YOU blew the 1x15. Not Ampeg. It seems to me that maybe you need to learn to listen to that a bit more and turn down when you're stressing it. It's not Ampeg's fault at all that you abuse your gear.
As already mentioned, 4x10 + 1x15 isn't really a good match. That 1x15 isn't "giving you more low end". Search this topic.
 
#6
Yes, +1 to all above. pairing a single 15 with a 4x10 cab is just the worst set up ever, no matter that it's advertised as the way to go, and no matter how popular it may still be. It's just plain bad. Get a matching 410he and rock that 6Pro without fear-(but still use common sense.)
 
#8
My first big rig was a 410 and 115 from what I remember it didn't sound bad but there was almost no real difference with the 115 added to the 410 compared to both cabs together. I was 15 when I got that setup. I have since played and not owned 410 115 set ups and don't think the 115 helps. On that note, it sounds like you just pushed the 115 way too hard. Maybe not even volume wise but too much bass. I don't know, I wasn't there. I will say that my experience with my chinese made SVT 7 Pro and 410hlf has been more than satisfactory.
 
#9
The Chinese and Korean Ampeg cabs are a lot better than the cabs made by SLM between 98 and 06. They were all made with OSB, which the owner of SLM really thought was a superior material and it took years to convince him otherwise. And then by the time he was convinced, he sold it.

+1 to the guys saying you blew it with too much power.
 
#10
gpcbass said:
Yes, I blewed the speaker but I expected more from the SVT 15E. I've combined the 410 with other 1x15 speakers without any problems in spite of wattage differences. The GK BLX 115 was really nice, also a 200 W cabinet. Again, I expected much more from the Ampeg 15E for which I payed over $700 (Europe).
Click to expand...

You realize that speaker 'ratings' are thermal limits rather than excursion limited power handling right? So not only did you feed your 115 cabinet 3x as much power as your 4x10, but then the excursion limits of your 15 are much less than the 200w listed.
 
#13
gpcbass said:
Yes, I blewed the speaker but I expected more from the SVT 15E. I've combined the 410 with other 1x15 speakers without any problems in spite of wattage differences. The GK BLX 115 was really nice, also a 200 W cabinet. Again, I expected much more from the Ampeg 15E for which I payed over $700 (Europe).
Click to expand...

Wait, are you saying the G-K BLX 115 (Backline) cab has survived where the SVT 15E would not? :confused:
 
#14
jmattbassplaya said:
OK, guys. He knows he screwed up. Back off of him since he's probably kicking himself enough as it is.
Click to expand...
Well it's pretty easy to fix. You could probably order the exact speaker from an Ampeg dealer. And Eminence has the Beta and Delta 15a which are similar to what they use in the SVT 15e. And I can't remember the European company who has a speaker similar to them, but it might be Celestion. I know one of those European speaker makers are making a similar speaker and it costs less in Europe.
 
#15
BurningSkies said:
You realize that speaker 'ratings' are thermal limits rather than excursion limited power handling right? So not only did you feed your 115 cabinet 3x as much power as your 4x10, but then the excursion limits of your 15 are much less than the 200w listed.
Click to expand...

And how do you know THAT?

It may not be true at all..........doesn't have to be, and SHOULDN'T be.

back when we were doing cabs, we made sure the excursion limit was NOT a factor...... any ported cab has the port take over at a certain frequency.... if the target power is "X", all that is necessary is to make sure that the given power does not require more excursion than the cone can do within the rated frequency range, including port effects.

I have no clue if the new cabs are done that way, I would assume that anyone who knows enough to design cabs would make sure of the excursion limited power being equal to or more than the rated power.
 
#16
Jerrold Tiers said:
And how do you know THAT?

It may not be true at all..........doesn't have to be, and SHOULDN'T be.

back when we were doing cabs, we made sure the excursion limit was NOT a factor...... any ported cab has the port take over at a certain frequency.... if the target power is "X", all that is necessary is to make sure that the given power does not require more excursion than the cone can do within the rated frequency range, including port effects.

I have no clue if the new cabs are done that way, I would assume that anyone who knows enough to design cabs would make sure of the excursion limited power being equal to or more than the rated power.
Click to expand...

If this is the case, then its one of the very few production cabs where the thermal rating is equal to the excursion limit...:)
 
#18
Again! I did it myself. I'm aware of that. All I say is that I'm very dissapointed.

To you who try to give me a lecture in the subject and telling me what I should do or not should do I'll say that before you speak you should know all the parameters. I think I have the necessary knowledge with over 40 years of experience as a musician and as a studio owner. I can do the math and calculations and I really want and like the sound from the combination of a 410 AND a 15 cabinet.

I'm sorry if I offended some of you!

By the way, the speaker blew with a Acoustic 320 amp!
 
#20
Jerrold Tiers said:
We tried not to lie.......... No clue what the current cabs are like in that respect. Maybe they don't do what they should.

No sense having a 500W cab that urps if you give it over 200 on a particular note...... that would be stupid.
Click to expand...

I agree. :) Unfortunately many many companies that make cabs give a thermal rating and don't give any mechanical limits, which is why lots of people end up complaining about cab-farts and then blown speakers. :(
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back