• 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.

LOUD..going...going....GONE

Status
Not open for further replies.
#41
JimmyM said:
.

But I would love it if Fender owned Ampeg. Fender has proven themselves to be run by people who really know what they're doing. They make quality stuff in all departments now and they know how to operate at a profit, and still keep a strong American-made presence despite farming out their lower priced gear to foreign companies. ;)
Click to expand...

+1

Also, I have yet to see proof that Fender has somehow ruined SWR. Well maybe the entry level stuff isn't so good, but the pro series stuff is still made in the USA, and has had a very reliable track record.

I also think the new Fender TB bass amps are pretty badd-ss.

I hope someone saves Ampeg, and also brings their line up-to-date with some new products and lighter cabs.

SVT classic 8x10 NEO (baltic birch ply cab) anyone? :D

I wonder if it would still sound the same?
 
#42
Baltic birch ain't light, bro. I have three cabs that are identical except one is made of baltic birch and it weighs about 10 lbs. more than the ones made of pine plywood. If baltic birch cabs are lighter, it's usually because they use thinner pieces.
 
#44
JimmyM said:
Baltic birch ain't light, bro. I have three cabs that are identical except one is made of baltic birch and it weighs about 10 lbs. more than the ones made of pine plywood. If baltic birch cabs are lighter, it's usually because they use thinner pieces.
Click to expand...

What do they use on the lighter cabs then?

I just meant no OSB or particle board crap.

I thought my Avatars were birch, maybe I'm wrong. They are the lightes cabs I have ever used.

*just checked and yep "13 PLY BALTIC BIRCH PLYWOOD"

Lighter than friggin particle board.
 
#47
Gearhead43 said:
True, but the thinner stuff is most likely PLENTY strong enough anyway.

I'm not using my bass cabs as jack stands for my 66 chevy or anything. :D
Click to expand...
Yeah but you rockabilly guys like to stand on your basses and amps, so you best make sure they can hold you ;)

1/2" baltic birch is probably fine for most cabs. As long as they don't flex and cause a loss of energy to the sound, that's what's important. But it ain't light...I just wanted to make that point ;)
 
#48
An 810 with those 3 cross pieces in there stiffens up the 1/2 plywood pretty good. You probably could still jack up the ol' 66 on one of them. Would make for an interesting event.

Just in the E series line of the 810's since its introduction we have seen 3/4" plywood, 3/4" particle board and 1/2" plywood on the USA cabs, and 1/2" ply on the foreign ones. If I had a big scale I would roll them each on and see what happens, but no joy. BOB
 
#49
ErebusBass said:
NOOOOOOOOOO
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. But hear me out. To make the SVT a success, you just have to stick with the historical design and convince people that the quality is good.

Guitar Center did good things with the Acoustic brand. The quality is good, or we would be reading failure reports every day here. The Acoustic amps appear to be manufactured by Crate, which is listed as the only success story among the LOUD brands. GC could also buy Crate.

And in any event, GC has to be part of the equation no matter who buys the brand.
 
#50
I sure hope none of you guys are doctors. There'd be a a ton of dead patients lying around; "Oh, he's had a heart attack, that's close enough to dead. Let me go refill my coffee."

Go look at the news on the company website and the chronological order of the events. Look for the word "restructuring" and the events before and after it. And read all of each article. I think you'll find they will be saving huge amounts of costs, including labor, by delisting. The CEO makes that statement.

It's survival moves. Whether it works or not...who knows?
 
#51
iammr2 said:
I sure hope none of you guys are doctors. There'd be a a ton of dead patients lying around; "Oh, he's had a heart attack, that's close enough to dead. Let me go refill my coffee."

Go look at the news on the company website and the chronological order of the events. Look for the word "restructuring" and the events before and after it. And read all of each article. I think you'll find they will be saving huge amounts of costs, including labor, by delisting. The CEO makes that statement.

It's survival moves. Whether it works or not...who knows?
Click to expand...
It isn't going to work. LOUD is damaged goods in the marketplace now. There's nothing they could do to regain customer trust except pretend they never existed and come out as a whole new company that has nothing to do with LOUD and has none of the idiots that got them into this mess in the first place.
 
#52
Well, maybe it won't. Please notice that they sacked the COO last July and the CEO last August. Change doesn't happen overnight though. Then they announced their restructuring in November, two weeks before the notice from NASDAQ. Also, the delisting is voluntary.
 
#54
iammr2 said:
I sure hope none of you guys are doctors. There'd be a a ton of dead patients lying around; "Oh, he's had a heart attack, that's close enough to dead. Let me go refill my coffee."

Go look at the news on the company website and the chronological order of the events. Look for the word "restructuring" and the events before and after it. And read all of each article. I think you'll find they will be saving huge amounts of costs, including labor, by delisting. The CEO makes that statement.

It's survival moves. Whether it works or not...who knows?
Click to expand...

iammr2 said:
Well, maybe it won't. Please notice that they sacked the COO last July and the CEO last August. Change doesn't happen overnight though. Then they announced their restructuring in November, two weeks before the notice from NASDAQ. Also, the delisting is voluntary.
Click to expand...

This is one heck of a heart attack. The stock is down from $18.50 in June '06 to 40 cents a share; that's a 98% drop. The delisting is technically voluntary, but as I already pointed out, they were unlikely to meet the criteria for being listed on Nasdaq any longer. They might--might--survive, but their chances are pretty bad in this environment. Even if they do survive, in what form?
 
#55
GregC said:
This is one heck of a heart attack. The stock is down from $18.50 in June '06 to 40 cents a share; that's a 98% drop. The delisting is technically voluntary, but as I already pointed out, they were unlikely to meet the criteria for being listed on Nasdaq any longer. They might--might--survive, but their chances are pretty bad in this environment. Even if they do survive, in what form?
Click to expand...

it has dropped to 10 cents more than once, and has been in the 20s several times. The last time was just this week, I think, and it was on 5000 shares or so, a relatively big block for Loud.

There is a pattern visible..... A large sale, with attendant drop of price. Then 2 or 3 small sales of nominal amounts like 100 or 200 shares, with a price drastically higher, often 2 to 6 times higher, and sometimes on the same day.

it LOOKS like someone is trying to prop up value by reacting to any steep drop by putting in a "buy order" at a price significantly higher. If it were not for that, I think the share price would have basically hit 10 cents and stuck there.

It isn't as if anyone with sense would LEND Loud any money now........ not with the stock value circling the drain, and the product troubles that have surfaced, and which they either didn't KNOW about, or were unwilling to admit, until forced to.

My guess is that whatever money came from the sale to USB&O was immediately swallowed by outstanding obligations, very possibly obligations to AMOI, which is evidently the company they are not getting product from anymore.
 
#57
#1 he doesn't want it anymore, at least as of the last time I saw him.

#2, it really needs someone who has a respect and appreciation for the old Ampeg stuff, and a real burning desire to keep it new with current products also. That person will have good solid traditional Ampeg available, AND new stuff that breaks the mold.

And they will be able to do marketing. Good product and bad marketing = lose money and fail.

Tony Moscal did the job on it back at SLM, and was primarily responsible for making it hot again. You may not like individual products in the line, but others do, there was one for most anyone. SLM was good at marketing, with some exceptions (Porta-Bass, Audio-Centron)

Most anyone now seems to have the same old "brand name is king, we can sell ANYTHING under that brand" attitude. That has spectacularly failed at Loud, proving that performance and provenance are BOTH important to the Ampeg customer.
 
#58
fdeck said:
Yeah, I know. But hear me out. To make the SVT a success, you just have to stick with the historical design and convince people that the quality is good.

Guitar Center did good things with the Acoustic brand. The quality is good, or we would be reading failure reports every day here. The Acoustic amps appear to be manufactured by Crate, which is listed as the only success story among the LOUD brands. GC could also buy Crate.

And in any event, GC has to be part of the equation no matter who buys the brand.
Click to expand...

Acoustics are made by Kustom. Today at least, GC may farm out to other manufacturers at any time.

Loud could have done a better job of farming out manufacturing. Other comments about Behringer buying Ampeg label. Behringer was one of the pioneers in buidling in China. Loud might had been more successful if Loud had contacted Behringer, to build the Ampegs - then monitored quality. It seems like a lot of wasted effort for Ampeg to start in Vietnam, then move to China, and now South Korea. They also needed to lower prices as much as possible. That's the way progress works: newer, better, cheaper. Newer Manufacturing process, Better Quality and Service, Cheaper prices.
 
#59
Jerrold Tiers said:
#
Most anyone now seems to have the same old "brand name is king, we can sell ANYTHING under that brand" attitude. That has spectacularly failed at Loud, proving that performance and provenance are BOTH important to the Ampeg customer.
Click to expand...

I understand that. Thats why it would take someone with the respect that Jess has to prove to the public that the brand means quality. I don't think Jess would allow anything inferior to see the light of day. After all the damage thats been done to the name , thats the only thing that could be done that would really mean something. I think the damage done has gone beyond what advertising can fix.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back