• 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.

NAD: New Acoustic 320 Day

#21
You're welcome...

So if I understand correctly, you like to run a very very clean guitar tone? no break up? Or are you talking that Fender glassy clean which has crinkly overtones tucked inside?

I've found that in order to get the 320/330 to stay clean as a whistle on the top end ( high frequencies), I need to cut a substantial amount of low end out of the EQ and hook up a "top end" only cab (the Acoustic 104 six ten is beautiful in this roll with it's Alnico drivers) running in conjunction with a "low end" cab with the highs rolled off (the Acoustic 408 four 15's is amazing for this).

For me this type of set up basically extends the effect you're going for on the head by separating the two channels into two different sounds (highs and lows or clean and dirty) and then further isolating those sounds by having them be reproduced by two different speakers. This keeps every thing totally independent and wow (!) it's a whole different world.

I've had bi-amp rigs and power amps with preamps running through different sized speakers ect... all that stuff. Different brands multiple times and it sounded good but there is just something very very special with the 320/330 head being used as the front end of a multi- speaker set up. I know I sound like a broken record to anyone who has read my stuff over on the Acoustic forum or here but I cant say it enough - it's a mind blowing sound.
 
#22
Yeah, tube amps have a sort of high end sparkle, a "crinkley" compressed sound. Not just Fender cleans, Marshall or Vox cleans have the same thing going on. Must be the tubes, IMO.

Since the 810e can be run as 2 separate 410s, I'm going to give bi-amping a try. I'll run the highs through channel A into the top 410, and the lows through the channel B preamp out into the power amp in of my pf500 and the bottom 410. Will report, stay tuned. ;-)
 
#25
Middy, Glad you're digging the 320!

This thread has got me into messing around with the channel switching on my 320 again. I've been lazy and just going mono lately so I can just concentrate on not screwing up any background vocals. ;) I've always used the stereo jack on my bass to access both channels simultaneously. Never really noticed the switched input rocker isn't working till I tried to do it with a P bass this afternoon. Planning on fixing that now.

Anyway, I tried out those settings you posted with my Rick in stereo. Totally awesome! Before, I was using the neck channel for lows and the bridge channel for mids AND highs.That also sounded great but I think your way will work better. Can't wait to try it out this weekend. I'll have a mic'ed cab Friday and be carrying the room Saturday so there should be no DI boxes standing in my way. :bassist:

Oh, and i gotta agree with Bottom that Acoustic heads do sound especially good with the matching cabs. That doesn't mean a 320 and an Ampeg 8x10 isn't also totally awesome.
 
#26
jj4001, glad I could inspire you to experiment some more. I wish I had a Rick to try that with, it sounds like so much fun.

The blended channels thing is especially useful for me for dirt... but dirt isn't useful for my current band so I'm glad my strategy proved useful for someone, because after more experimenting today, I find that I love the sound of just a single channel with the graphic eq off, and the controls at noon, and I like it even more with the treble knocked down to 9:00 and bass turned up to 2:00.

I can't get over how musical this amp is. My Ampeg pf500 sounds pretty flat and lifeless in comparison. I hooked up my chorus and had to turn the mix way down from where I had it set for the Ampeg. I don't know what sort of magic dust they used on these things... I can get some almost similar sounds with the Ampeg by turning on the deep switch and cranking the mids up to 4:00, setting 4, but then it kind of sounds like a flattish amp with too much eq applied. The Acoustic just sounds... alive!

Could it be the big caps and power transformers? Is that why people still swear by tube amps when maybe it's not really the tubes that should get all the credit?

If this thing sounds as good in the band mix as I think it will, the pf500 will become my backup amp. Schedule changed, full band rehearsal tomorrow night.
 
#27
Yeah, it definitely still sounds awesome without blending the channels, too. Lots of cut and boost in all of those knobs and sliders so it has tons of tonal versatility. I tend to try and make it sound like my Acoustic 370 does completely flat. That usually involves boosting bass, slight cut of the mids, and a deeper cut of the treble. Generally I like to dial in the basic tone I like with the tone knobs, then use the graphic to fine-tune it for the particular room, and compensating for the slight but noticeable loss of lows you get by engaging the graphic EQ. Those big knobs on the graphic come in handy for making adjustments on the fly.

You really can't go wrong with any of the old ACC amps. I've liked all the ones I've had but the 320 and 370 are definitely the keepers. The 450 gets a lot of love but it's the only one that I did not like with an Ampeg 8x10. Still it was killer through ACC cabs with 15's. Still haven't had a chance to try out a 361.
 
#28
After reading Invalid Link Removed, I suspect Mr. Lamkins is right. It's the IC op-amps and their linear response that make for sterile sounding solid state amps. ACC amps are discrete designs, no chips, full of delicious irregularity and juicy non-linearity like a tube amp.

Sterile is good for reproducing recordings. Not so much for making music. :rollno:
 
#29
Middy>>> you're getting closer with splitting the cab but (I'm still dealing with the whole running an Ampeg cab ect so give me some space please...) do me a favor and try hooking up two cabs with different sized drivers. Big speakers for lows... small speakers for highs. I know it sounds cro-mag but I wanna get your impression.
 
#30
Hahaha. bottomend!, the Ampeg is my only bass cab for now. I tried it with the power amp of the pf500 driving the lows and I got a bunch of distortion. Maybe the B channel preamp out is broken, or there is an impedance mismatch to the pf500 power amp in?

Oh well, I'll hold off on that experiment until I get another cab someday.
 
#31
The 320 sounded great at rehearsal. I mostly ran it flat on one channel, and I'll be darned if it doesn't sit in the mix just right! Definitely not a modern sound. It's very mid forward, but hefty.
I noticed a kind of ringing buzzy overtone, though. I'm not sure if I was vibrating something in the room. I thought it was just stuff in the room at home, but now I'm not so sure? Does this sound like a symptom of something wrong? At the end of the night I could no longer hear it. I guess I'll have to take it outdoors and test it.
Overall, I'm very happy with the results. It's easy to hear yourself play with it, nice punchy growly tone, very touch sensitive and powerful sounding. The drummer loved it! Perfect for hard rock with a pick.
 
#32
its called 'going deaf' i.e. stuff you can hear at the beginning of a rehearsal mysteriously disappearing by the end.

dont know about the distortion sound comming out of "B". try it with a different amp and see if you get the same result.
 
#33
Haha. May be going deaf... We also thought it could be dirty power, the fluorescent lights got turned off by the end of the session. A bad cable, dirty contacts, the old power cord...

I had decided to gamble and leave the pf500 at home. Will definitely bring it next time to a/b.

Since I was getting a great sound from the single channel, I ended up using the channel switching as a mute, turning down channel A makes the "A or B" position silent.
 
#34
The old switches get dirty contacts and can make some evil crackling noises. Regular use is sometimes all they need, but if you really have problems with them, they can be taken apart and cleaned. I don't do that, because I would certainly break the plastic parts, but there's a local tech whose work I trust 100% who does things like that.

Funny thing about ACC amps - I currently have a 360 and a 320. I had a 370 for a while but never liked it very much. A 320 through a 408 cabinet has a sound I can only describe as fully and juicy. So does a 360 and 361. The sound I got from a 370 through the 408 cabinet sounded hoarse and ratty by comparison. It's all relative, because it sounded very good. Just not as good, to me. We all have different ears.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back