• 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.

New ampeg speculation - A true B15 Reissue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#241
JimmyM said:
bull hockey sticks! i do it all the time. you just don't know the secret. hint: you don't leave the knobs at noon.
Click to expand...

Oh I know that, but you still cant get it flat. Not that most peoiple use an amp flat, but I don't like having an eq curve forced on me. The guy that designed it, Bill Hughes said:
I had previously developed a style of equalization for bass while working as a freelance recording engineer. Cranking up a lot of low end boost was never a good idea when your target is vinyl. rather, removing the lower odd-order harmonics (as the SVT was set up to do) does way more to give the right illusion. I guess this is why bass amps with graphic EQ have fallen from vogue.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to argue with you, I think you are a nice guy. But I'm stating the facts. A lot of people like SVTs, but it's kind of an archaic deign IMO. When I wanted a tube amp I went with the Mesa 400+ because it's more hi-fi and flexible tone wise than the SVT, and at the time (before Loud Tech) I was shopping for a vintage SVT.

I think the B-15n sounds very nice, especially after I changed the speaker on mine for a JBL. When the output transformer went I used the cab with an Acoustic head. If I still had mine (it was stolen) I would use it at home (when I'm not using head phones).

My current amp, a Trace Elliott head and PA cab with a 15" is slight enough to carry in each hand, and is loud enough for gigs.

I just think that for the money this will cost, it's underpowered. We can agree to disagree. :D

Invalid Link Removed
 

Attachments

#242
sevenyearsdown said:
I do hope though that they don't put some big "heritage series" logo right on the front of the cab or anything. One thing about that series of ampeg is that they not only sound great, but they look so damn cool. It'd be like seeing giant hip-hopper rims on a '57 chevy or something. Or similar to when Fender slapped that ugly new logo on the TV series amps.
Click to expand...

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
#244
main_sale said:
I have this mint condition '67 B-15-N and a 2002 B-15R/15E but I still have room, potentially" for more Ampeg goodness.

B-15-NWEB.jpg
Click to expand...

That B-15 N looks to be the B-15 N Series D that had a 50 watt head like the B-18's. Very Cool.

Ric
 
#245
SGD Lutherie said:
OK, please back that up with some numbers.

Just as with saying most studios use B-15s.. they don't, but I'm sure some do.



No, you can't. Totally different tone stack. You can't even get an SVT flat. It always has a big hump at 250Hz, and has the low end rolled off. The ultra lo switch actually scoops the mids to sound deeper. The guy that did the EQ (can't recall his name) used to design phono EQs, and they roll the low end off there too. He did that so the amp wouldn't sound boomy in large rooms.



Lots of amps had that back then.
Click to expand...

The tone stack in the svt and b-15 are both james tone stacks and are pretty much identical, you can check some schematics if you think i'm wrong. Obviously the b-15 doesn't have a active mid cut / boost section or the mid cut switch though.

Edit; Also if you hate the b-15, that's ok. Different horses for different courses
 
#247
MAMMOTHvolume said:
not ideal component layout, few wires look like they're carrying a bit of tension so they're likely to snap, also the layout could be alot neater and better thought out.

Obviously it's not terrible but for the price point i'm assuming they're going for i'd expect something alot neater
Click to expand...

This was just a quick snapshot during prototype. Expect the final product to be immaculate.
 
#251
MAMMOTHvolume said:
The tone stack in the svt and b-15 are both james tone stacks and are pretty much identical, you can check some schematics if you think i'm wrong. Obviously the b-15 doesn't have a active mid cut / boost section or the mid cut switch though.
Click to expand...

...and that is the big difference. An inductor based mid control.

Plus the tone shaping (even with no switches engaged) of the stuff between the 2nd and 3rd gain stage.

Never mind different coupling caps that will slightly alter frequency response.

The SVT uses a very similar tone stack, but when you look at the entirety of the tone shaping - it's merely similar.
 
#252
aborgman said:
...and that is the big difference. An inductor based mid control.

Plus the tone shaping (even with no switches engaged) of the stuff between the 2nd and 3rd gain stage.

Never mind different coupling caps that will slightly alter frequency response.

The SVT uses a very similar tone stack, but when you look at the entirety of the tone shaping - it's merely similar.
Click to expand...

aye thats what i was saying sgd lutherie was implying they had completely different tone stacks. The tone stack is pretty much the only part where they don't differ, they're both very different amps
 
#253
MAMMOTHvolume said:
aye thats what i was saying sgd lutherie was implying they had completely different tone stacks. The tone stack is pretty much the only part where they don't differ, they're both very different amps
Click to expand...


Well, I consider all the switches (and that resonant mid control) to be part of the tone stack that is significantly different.

The treble/bass part of the stack is the same (if you ignore the forced pre-eq and the difference in source impedance), so that part of the adjustment is very similar.
 
#256
SGD Lutherie said:
No, it would be a loud B-15. The B-15 had a nice sounding EQ/preamp. The SVT doesn't. When they added all those stupid ultra lo and high switches to the B-15 they ruined the thing. You remember that version, right? ;)
.
Click to expand...

I love my '63 for what it is, but I actually prefer the sound of the 70's model with the Ultra Lo engaged. Since my '63 is a restore and not a museum piece, I had even thought of having this mod done to it, but coming up with a better location for the switch that wouldn't permanently change the chasis.

http://andrewnelson.com/B-12N/
 
#260
SGD Lutherie said:
Oh I know that, but you still cant get it flat. Not that most peoiple use an amp flat, but I don't like having an eq curve forced on me. The guy that designed it, Bill Hughes said:


I'm not trying to argue with you, I think you are a nice guy. But I'm stating the facts. A lot of people like SVTs, but it's kind of an archaic deign IMO. When I wanted a tube amp I went with the Mesa 400+ because it's more hi-fi and flexible tone wise than the SVT, and at the time (before Loud Tech) I was shopping for a vintage SVT.

I think the B-15n sounds very nice, especially after I changed the speaker on mine for a JBL. When the output transformer went I used the cab with an Acoustic head. If I still had mine (it was stolen) I would use it at home (when I'm not using head phones).

My current amp, a Trace Elliott head and PA cab with a 15" is slight enough to carry in each hand, and is loud enough for gigs.

I just think that for the money this will cost, it's underpowered. We can agree to disagree. :D

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
ya i saw the article, and i don't care. i'm telling you i was able to almost exactly match the sound of my lmii set at noon (which has a near flat eq) with my svt. you don't want to believe it, fine. but i know what i heard so i really don't care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back