Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 mesa all tube amp ?????
- Thread starter Bassragerstitch
- Start date
- Status
Hmmm, see, all this talk about Mesa being cleaner, more articulate, defined, pristine, etc. than Ampeg is so very odd to me. I tend to think of cleaner sounds from Ampeg than I do from Mesa, and I own a Mesa.
The reason I own a Mesa is because Ampegs are too clean for me. It's too difficult to get them to dirty up enough for my tastes. My bass sound could definitely be described as grindy. Even when an SVT overdrives, though it's a sound I love, it won't get quite as nasty as my Mesa.
Then again, the Mesa I own is the D-180.
Gentlemen,
What is the "street" value of a good running condition Buster 200 in a "head" version? And to repeat my self, any owner's opinions of this amp would be greatly appreciated. I have the chance to trade my mint condition 1968 Fender Showman amp straight across for the Buster head.
I already own a Bassman 100 and 135 as well as a 1973 sunn Model T. How reliable is the Buster? Common guys if you own it, tell me how you like it/hate it any thoughts from actual experience.
Bonus check is coming and I have GAS, not flatulence.
Never had any problems with my gear yet, service it myself.
Hey? What's a HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE? I touched B+ and rode in the back of an Ambulance later
thanx
What is the "street" value of a good running condition Buster 200 in a "head" version? And to repeat my self, any owner's opinions of this amp would be greatly appreciated. I have the chance to trade my mint condition 1968 Fender Showman amp straight across for the Buster head.
I already own a Bassman 100 and 135 as well as a 1973 sunn Model T. How reliable is the Buster? Common guys if you own it, tell me how you like it/hate it any thoughts from actual experience.
Bonus check is coming and I have GAS, not flatulence.
Never had any problems with my gear yet, service it myself.
Hey? What's a HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE? I touched B+ and rode in the back of an Ambulance later
thanx
Mr. Foxen
Commercial User
When I think of a clean sound, if I am thinking of the amp at all, then it probably isn't clean.
You take someones opinion of ampeg personally and resort to condescention with your last words? Thats childish. The amps forum expects more out of you jimmy!
Well every time you double the wattage you go up 3dB, so 60 (Bassman volume), 150 (roughly V4 territory) and 300 (SVT loud) makes sense to me. There wouldn't be much audible difference between 100/200/300.
Busters can be had fairly cheaply, and they're wonderful amps. I've had both and I'd swap in a heartbeat.
I don't care. I'm nobody's role model.You take someones opinion of ampeg personally and resort to condescention with your last words? Thats childish. The amps forum expects more out of you jimmy!
Gentlemen,
What is the "street" value of a good running condition Buster 200 in a "head" version? And to repeat my self, any owner's opinions of this amp would be greatly appreciated. I have the chance to trade my mint condition 1968 Fender Showman amp straight across for the Buster head.
I already own a Bassman 100 and 135 as well as a 1973 sunn Model T. How reliable is the Buster? Common guys if you own it, tell me how you like it/hate it any thoughts from actual experience.
Bonus check is coming and I have GAS, not flatulence.
Never had any problems with my gear yet, service it myself.
Hey? What's a HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE? I touched B+ and rode in the back of an Ambulance later
thanx
I had a buster 200 Head . It was great head power wise i used it to power a yorkville 8x8 .I would consider it just as reliable as my 1972 Fender bass man 50 or any of my previous amps i have owned . I had bought it on a whim to replace my svt that i had sold . The only complaint i had with the buster 200 was the pre amp was very hi fi sounding to me only because i was use to the svt i was using . Overall the weight and power section was very practical to use and carry and more then loud enough with 6 6l6 power tubes . Overall a great amp just depends on the sound you want i was using Fender Jazz basses
with mine
Mr. Foxen
Commercial User
Sort of important to remember, with valve amps, that as you go bigger in watts, you tend to go bigger in power transformer, which is a big deal to how much low end they can pass, so will give the impression of more power in addition to the actual more power..
You take someones opinion of ampeg personally and resort to condescention with your last words? Thats childish. The amps forum expects more out of you jimmy!
The minority of the forum, maybe.
But it's all good. I like my amps fast and responsive. Unaltered by tones. I don't have poor technique to hide. Just like how I've chosen to describe my likes and dislike as opposed to saying a person I've never seen play before can't adjust an amp. I guess I'm more secure in my unbought opinions.
The minority of the forum, maybe.
But it's all good. I like my amps fast and responsive. Unaltered by tones. I don't have poor technique to hide. Just like how I've chosen to describe my likes and dislike as opposed to saying a person I've never seen play before can't adjust an amp. I guess I'm more secure in my unbought opinions.
You imply that those who do like coloration from their amps are hiding poor technique. That seems rather insulting.
I'm still baffled why if you prefer "fast," and "unaltered" you play Mesas. I find them much dirtier than the Ampegs I've played. Ampegs are too clean for me. That is, in fact, why I like Mesas.
I can't speak for MSU, but I personally found my SVTs (a Classic and a 70s OG) to be tonally focused in the low midrange, where there felt to be a noticeable compression/ pillowing effect at higher volumes- still punchy as hell though. In comparison my 400+ seemed much more even sounding across the spectrum (which came off as having a brighter/clearer bias towards the high mids/ highs and deeper lows vs that heavy low-mid). The 400+ seemed ideal for "grindy" tones because of the clearer attack, and though I could dial in something in the ballpark of that low-mid compressed punch of the SVT it wasn't quite as chest thumping as the SVT in that application. I much preferred the 400+ for myself, as I personally did find the SVT to get a little muddy for me by comparison at higher volumes because of that low-mid bias. This is partially a result of my basses and string choices at the time coupled with the SVT voicing- G&L L2000s and heavy gauge strings- but the 400+ was just a better compliment. Different flavors of great tone!
Yeah. It's not so much dirt or OD. Good Lord. I use enough of that on my board to where I wouldn't be avoiding it in an amp. I was going to say....muffled....but sunbeast said it best with pillowing. It's like SVTs put a light blanket on my tone. But again, some people are looking for that ampeg coloring. ****, Swell just came out with a pedal that is getting some buzz because it's supposed to get that coloring. Other pedals have tried to emulate it. I've said over and over again that it's great for some people and some styles. I do the same thing with my FX when I'm looking for a certain tone or sound....or crazy thing...whatever...but I don't like my clean sound with that coloring.
But I'm sure we'll hear some more from people who don't like that other people don't want what they do.
But I'm sure we'll hear some more from people who don't like that other people don't want what they do.
SVT's definitely do have a substantial bump in the low mids. I've playd my friend's, but it's way cleaner than my D-180. It is more power, granted. Sounds amazing whenever I've seen a band he's in though. Not muddy at all.
My D-180 on the other hand seems voiced a bit more in the high mids. And while it does do clean to some extent, it never seems quite as clean as that SVT, which is good for my purposes.
I guess, to sum up the differences between them, to me the SVT, even when distorting, has a very solid sort of grunt/growl (the latter when distorted) sound, whereas my Mesa is more of a nasty grind/bark.
Even the cleaner sounds I use in the folk/rock band I play in (as opposed to the metal bands I play in) are nowhere near being actually clean.
Everyone is using the word "clean" but they're all using it with different meanings. One side is using it to denote the tone of an amp while the other is using it to talk about the level of dirt or grit. Lots of the miscommunication is right there.
So you mean flat then.
My mesa's definitely not flat, it just has a different voicing than an ampeg. At least, through my amp, even set to have the least amount of overdrive as possible, it sounds very little like a DI of my bass.
My mesa's definitely not flat, it just has a different voicing than an ampeg. At least, through my amp, even set to have the least amount of overdrive as possible, it sounds very little like a DI of my bass.
Agreed- grunt is a good way to put it. And my D-180 sounded much different than my 400+. Apart from never being very "clean" at all at gig volumes (partially due to a lack of headroom in my case- though I also didn't see it as a disadvantage for what I usually used it for), it didn't have near the heft that the 400+ did at any volume and so had a more focused upper midrange grind.
I wouldn't call a 400+ "flat" either, its voicing is just a little less overpowering for my tonal goals. Plus I used a fairly liberal amount of creative EQ with mine to get it just where I wanted it (the preamp is ripe for that- one of the things I also dig about this Strategy)- the "flat" settings on that amp are not the most inspiring in my opinion, which is my theory on why many folks don't immediately get along with them.
- Status
