• 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 ?????

Status
Not open for further replies.
#361
The upper mid range zone was something that didn't work for me with the 400+...it had a quality to it that I didn't love, combined with the scoop in the mids and low mids because of the Fender tone stack. I could never quite get it 'clean' enough for my liking, and that's nothing to do with flat, which is a completely different thing. I've found that pretty much every preamp with a Fender tone stack has a similar quality to it, and to me they all lack a certain midrange punch or definition.

The SVT is an interesting beast. I never felt that they were terribly low when paired with the classic 810, and its easy for them to get sloppy to my ears, that sort of spongy give they have when driven hot. It also can have a certain midrange snarl that the Mesa never really captured, which to me has some breakup in the mids. I think a lot of that comes from the power stage not the preamp stage though, and in the same way that the SVT gets it from running the power section hot, the Mesa has a lot less 'give' in its power section, sounding a bit 'harder' and colder to my ears, which would be one of the reasons I guess that people think they sound sorta SS.
 
#362
Interesting. How has this thread gone from

new mesa all tube amp ?????

to a discussion of Ampeg tonal qualities vs Mesa amps, and D-180's, 400/400+ and Busters at that, not the new all tube Mesa amps.

somehow there is even a drive-by by a well known Ampeg user (how the heck did that happen ?) I wonder, are dedicated Ampeg users and fervent supporters thinking of trying out the new Mesa all tube amp for some reason ?

are these amps even available to mere mortals yet ?
what is the ETA on them for the buying public ?

I'd be more interested in one of these (as a happy Mesa user), if I was not currently so deeply involved in working out on an Ampeg PF500/PF115HE rig :cool:
 
#363
pfschim said:
Interesting. How has this thread gone from

new mesa all tube amp ?????

to a discussion of Ampeg tonal qualities vs Mesa amps, and D-180's, 400/400+ and Busters at that, not the new all tube Mesa amps.

somehow there is even a drive-by by a well known Ampeg user (how the heck did that happen ?) I wonder, are dedicated Ampeg users and fervent supporters thinking of trying out the new Mesa all tube amp for some reason ?

are these amps even available to mere mortals yet ?
what is the ETA on them for the buying public ?

I'd be more interested in one of these (as a happy Mesa user), if I was not currently so deeply involved in working out on an Ampeg PF500/PF115HE rig :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm not really dying to carry an all tube anything these days, but I'd certainly be interested to hear it. There's a lot of water under the bridge at Mesa between their last all tube bass head and this, and it would be interesting to see where they've decided it should go.
 
#365
pfschim said:
Interesting. How has this thread gone from

new mesa all tube amp ?????

to a discussion of Ampeg tonal qualities vs Mesa amps, and D-180's, 400/400+ and Busters at that, not the new all tube Mesa amps.

somehow there is even a drive-by by a well known Ampeg user (how the heck did that happen ?) I wonder, are dedicated Ampeg users and fervent supporters thinking of trying out the new Mesa all tube amp for some reason ?

are these amps even available to mere mortals yet ?
what is the ETA on them for the buying public ?

I'd be more interested in one of these (as a happy Mesa user), if I was not currently so deeply involved in working out on an Ampeg PF500/PF115HE rig :cool:
Click to expand...

Well let's see- we were discussing the interesting use of the 12 6L6 tubes that is unique (I think?) to Mesa, which inevitably led to a comparison between that and the "common" way to get 300 watts with tubes in a bass amp (which of course = SVT). Seems on topic to me seeing as how the new Mesa amps are continuing this tradition, and so will likely have more in common with the past Mesas than anything else currently on the market in an all-tube design...
 
#366
BurningSkies said:
The upper mid range zone was something that didn't work for me with the 400+...it had a quality to it that I didn't love, combined with the scoop in the mids and low mids because of the Fender tone stack. I could never quite get it 'clean' enough for my liking, and that's nothing to do with flat, which is a completely different thing. I've found that pretty much every preamp with a Fender tone stack has a similar quality to it, and to me they all lack a certain midrange punch or definition.

The SVT is an interesting beast. I never felt that they were terribly low when paired with the classic 810, and its easy for them to get sloppy to my ears, that sort of spongy give they have when driven hot. It also can have a certain midrange snarl that the Mesa never really captured, which to me has some breakup in the mids. I think a lot of that comes from the power stage not the preamp stage though, and in the same way that the SVT gets it from running the power section hot, the Mesa has a lot less 'give' in its power section, sounding a bit 'harder' and colder to my ears, which would be one of the reasons I guess that people think they sound sorta SS.
Click to expand...

I always had the Bass and usually the Treble controls pulled out on my 400+, which countered that Fender tone stack effect for me by adding a significant boost of low and high mids (though I honestly never had trouble getting good mids on other amps with that tone stack either). I also made good use of the Graphic EQ to push and sculpt the mids more (while also cutting the lowest bands to clean it up)- I felt like I could get all the snarl that my SVTs could with a combo of the pulled Treble control and a little Graphic mid hump. I also found a significant improvement in the mids of the 400+ using different tubes- the Mesa tubes were very nasally to my ears in that amp, and at different times I had Amperex and JJs in the preamp that were a huge improvement (both in very different ways- the JJs were big and rich in the low mids, while the Amperex were just very clear). Ditto the improvement in the power section- I was very happy with the Shuguang 6L6s that were recommended to me by Lord Valve, and never found the attack from that amp to be anything resembling "hard," "cold," or "solid-state" with some decent tubes in it. The Sovteks Mesa used in the power section were pretty bland, and also lacked much "balls" when pushed. When I first bought my 400+ with the original tubes I hated it to be honest!

As far as the SVT- it isn't about too much lows, but low-mids. I don't think the SVT has a huge low end at all (and certainly not through an Ampeg 8x10), and I feel like the 400+ went noticeably deeper in the lows (which is why I appreciated having the Graphic EQ slider to notch out some of the sub bass). I would dime the Bass control on my SVT-CL generally when I pushed it and the actual low end never seemed overpowering- it actually seemed to smooth out some of the mid hump when run that way- it is the only amp I have ever dimed the Bass on, and one of few that I didn't actually cut bass on.
 
#367
sunbeast said:
I always had the Bass and usually the Treble controls pulled out on my 400+, which countered that Fender tone stack effect for me by adding a significant boost of low and high mids (though I honestly never had trouble getting good mids on other amps with that tone stack either). I also made good use of the Graphic EQ to push and sculpt the mids more (while also cutting the lowest bands to clean it up)- I felt like I could get all the snarl that my SVTs could with a combo of the pulled Treble control and a little Graphic mid hump. I also found a significant improvement in the mids of the 400+ using different tubes- the Mesa tubes were very nasally to my ears in that amp, and at different times I had Amperex and JJs in the preamp that were a huge improvement (both in very different ways- the JJs were big and rich in the low mids, while the Amperex were just very clear). Ditto the improvement in the power section- I was very happy with the Shuguang 6L6s that were recommended to me by Lord Valve, and never found the attack from that amp to be anything resembling "hard," "cold," or "solid-state" with some decent tubes in it. The Sovteks Mesa used in the power section were pretty bland, and also lacked much "balls" when pushed. When I first bought my 400+ with the original tubes I hated it to be honest!

As far as the SVT- it isn't about too much lows, but low-mids. I don't think the SVT has a huge low end at all (and certainly not through an Ampeg 8x10), and I feel like the 400+ went noticeably deeper in the lows (which is why I appreciated having the Graphic EQ slider to notch out some of the sub bass). I would dime the Bass control on my SVT-CL generally when I pushed it and the actual low end never seemed overpowering- it actually seemed to smooth out some of the mid hump when run that way- it is the only amp I have ever dimed the Bass on, and one of few that I didn't actually cut bass on.
Click to expand...

The pulls are just center shifts, but the tone controls still remain a fender stack, or, passive mids (close to flat at 10), and B/T 'flat' around 2. The Mesa tubes lasted about a month in mine before moving on to JJ's, which were an improvement, but not everything. Pretty much any amp that has a mid control that maxes at 'flat' lacks attack to my ears, and that includes my Kern, which is a hell of a tone machine compared to the Mesa. I don't know if that lies in the choice of 12AX7 in the gain and EQ sections or the tone stack design. Again, the cold-biased 6L6's don't have the give or sponginess that a hotter biased amp has, to me that comes off as 'hard and cold'. To the same extent that my Fender Twin can also sound cold when it's not running hot.
 
#369
MSUsousaphone said:
I'm sure that has a lot to do with basses, too. Using my Status S2-Classic....it sounds nothing like that. But I have a very lively bass.
Click to expand...

Weeeeeelll...I wouldn't be so sure of that. I've used a range of basses and other rigs over the years too. :) I like lively sounding and feeling basses, I use rounds over flats, etc.

Needless to say, after a number of years, I re-sold the 400+ and moved on to other things. I got tired of never *quite* getting what I wanted and making small tone tweaks all the time. That and the DI was awful.
 
#370
I wonder if they're going to bias this amp a bit hotter than the 400/400+? One thing I don't like about my 400+ is it starts to break up around 5.5 on the volume with the master around 5-6. It really doesn't get noticeable till around 6.5 on the volume but I would wish it would stay cleaner a bit longer.

I should probably invest in having the adjustable bias pot put in to get it a bit hotter and get some more out of it.
 
#371
WhoDidTheElf said:
I wonder if they're going to bias this amp a bit hotter than the 400/400+? One thing I don't like about my 400+ is it starts to break up around 5.5 on the volume with the master around 5-6. It really doesn't get noticeable till around 6.5 on the volume but I would wish it would stay cleaner a bit longer.

I should probably invest in having the adjustable bias pot put in to get it a bit hotter and get some more out of it.
Click to expand...

Try a lower gain tube in your V1. A 5751 would clean it up a bit, but some guys like 12AU7's in that slot which to my ear are cleaner and more musical anyway. They also have only about 30% gain vs. the AX7's 100% gain.
 
#372
Yeah, I like to use the lighter tubes....AY7s even for the 70% gain. I prefer to get my dirt from my board. Just got an Onkart Gromt Grombass in and that thing is incredible. I tried flats for a bit....I LOVED the way they felt but just couldn't get into the sound. I need that lively clankityness from my Thomastik Infelds rounds.
 
#374
sunbeast said:
Well let's see- we were discussing the interesting use of the 12 6L6 tubes that is unique (I think?) to Mesa, which inevitably led to a comparison between that and the "common" way to get 300 watts with tubes in a bass amp (which of course = SVT). Seems on topic to me seeing as how the new Mesa amps are continuing this tradition, and so will likely have more in common with the past Mesas than anything else currently on the market in an all-tube design...
Click to expand...

thanks for the thread roadmap. after they get to be more than 10 pages, it can get to be a bit of a challenge to figure out where the current conversation topics came from.
 
#376
Sunnmon said:
Hello Combatants,
:D
uh, I mean fellow bassists:hyper:

while we're at it does anybody own, OWN A MESA BUSTER 200?
I'd like to hear from Buster owners as I am considering getting one. If you own one I'd like to know the good, the bad and the ugly about it before I make the deal.:help:

It would be great if we were all "open-minded" regarding gear but we are not but we could be respectful of other bassist choices, even if in our opinions they are spot on or wrong.:p

thanx in advance for the Buster review and
Peace and Happiness to all, even the !@#$%^&* brand users!
:hiding:
sunnmon
Click to expand...

I own 2 Buster's! A 15" combo and a head. They are great. Not sure what's "bad" about them, other than they are cleaner and more 'forward' sounding than what most people expect from an all-tube amp. They don't want to get too gritty on their own.

I use my combo for medium-to-large around town shows. It can fill a room, no sweat! I've toured with the head as well... it's a GREAT, great sounding amp! Very reliable & holds up well to rough travel.
 
#377
BurningSkies said:
The pulls are just center shifts, but the tone controls still remain a fender stack, or, passive mids (close to flat at 10), and B/T 'flat' around 2. The Mesa tubes lasted about a month in mine before moving on to JJ's, which were an improvement, but not everything. Pretty much any amp that has a mid control that maxes at 'flat' lacks attack to my ears, and that includes my Kern, which is a hell of a tone machine compared to the Mesa. I don't know if that lies in the choice of 12AX7 in the gain and EQ sections or the tone stack design. Again, the cold-biased 6L6's don't have the give or sponginess that a hotter biased amp has, to me that comes off as 'hard and cold'. To the same extent that my Fender Twin can also sound cold when it's not running hot.
Click to expand...

I'm not so certain they are "just" center shifts, I recall a noticeable boost in mids just from pulling them even when both were set "flat" (or 2). Regardless, if you pulled them and then turned them up, you would effectively be boosting midrange at both ends, which would be different than what is possible with a standard Fender tone stack. Sorry that didn't work for you, but it worked just as it should have for me! Changing tubes in the preamp made significant differences in the voice of the pre as I mentioned before- as well as significant changes in the gain of the preamp controls. And lastly- the choice of tubes in the power section can be made specifically to favor a hotter bias, or conversely you can have bias control added fairly easily. My power tube choice was a recommended set to get saturated power tube overdrive, though it was suggested to me that the necessity of bias controls wasn't wholly necessary as long as I used a decently chosen/matched set of tubes, and this was coming from a tech who was infamously anti-Mesa marketing/fixed biasing/etc (Lord Valve/ Fat Willie). I was sceptical, but I sold my SVT pretty quick after he worked on it. I wonder if you ever checked the bias of your 400+ after changing tubes? The Sovtek 5881 tubes Mesa select(ed) for the 400+ will run cold(ish), but all tubes will bias differently. I was actually strayed away from the JJs in the power section for bass use, even though it would have made him an extra $80 or so if he had sold me on those (his Shuguang recommendation was actually among the cheapest options available at the time). It is true that the 400/400+ are power limited by their output transformers, which is the real reason they won't reach 300 watts even when biased nominally (though they aren't too far off).
 
#378
I take it that on the 400+ the pull shift for the bass control shifts the center frequency up, rather than down, like on the D-180?

One of the reasons I'm interested in these new amps from Mesa is that with the M6/M9 preamp, it is quite possible to get a very significant midboost without using the graphic EQ, something that's difficult on my D-180 (despite how awesome the D-180 sounds, the EQ section is just not that useful to me... the mid knob may as well not even be there).
 
#379
sunbeast said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know about the Mesa being flat, just that seemed to be what MSU was trying to say.
 
#380
sunbeast said:
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.
Click to expand...

IIRC they changed a few things about the preamp and took out the weird master/volume setup of the D-180 in the 400 and 400+, as well as the latter two being more powerful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back