Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

new Traynor YBA200 vs. 70's SVT

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by Wounded Paw, Jun 16, 2004.


  1. Nothing will replace a vintage SVT

    5 vote(s)
    29.4%
  2. The YBA200 will give some of what you need but not all

    6 vote(s)
    35.3%
  3. You'll never notice the difference except in weight

    2 vote(s)
    11.8%
  4. Best move you ever made, YBA200 is an SVT killer

    4 vote(s)
    23.5%
  1. I know this has been discussed in that other thread but I'd like some clear comparisons from people that have used both. I've used my early 70's SVT for years (currently with a Berg NV610) and love the sound but it's freakin' heavy. I ordered a Traynor YBA200 from L&M to replace it at least some of my gigs/practices but I haven't even heard the thing yet. So, will I be disappointed or ecstatic?
     
  2. If you're not, at least your back will!
     
  3. Rezdog

    Rezdog Supporting Member

    Feb 17, 2004
    T.Rez, Canada
    Greetings,
    I've yet to try out the new Traynor tube head. From what I've read it sounds like it's pretty nice. But I do have one concern and that's power. In the long New Traynor Tube Head thread on page 7,#139,rok51 said it didn't have enough grunt to push out the low notes at higher volumes and he's using a couple of GS112's Aggies. And I plan on getting a couple of single 112's,from who I'm not sure yet.
    Back in ancient times I did have an early series SVT. I loved the sound but I don't miss the heft. I kinda wish they had put an extra 100 watts in the new Traynor though. But as I remember back, thats why I went for the SVT. The more things change............
    Rezdog
     
  4. GrapeBass

    GrapeBass

    Jun 10, 2004
    Toronto
    Graphic designer: Yorkville Sound
    I believe the Traynor YBA200 is only about 50 Watts less than an SVT... at least according to a friend who knows the designer. Apparently the Traynor really puts out about 225 Watts vs. 275 from the SVT (classic).

    I personally haven't compared them, but I'd love to hear a comparison using 8x10 cabs...

    I'm sure there's someone out there that can actually perform real tests... In any case, the less weight factor makes the Traynor a viable gigin' option while the SVT is just way too heavy.

    Jb
     
  5. RevGroove

    RevGroove Commercial User

    Jul 21, 2002
    Burlington ON Canada
    Manager, Account Services: Long & McQuade Ltd. (Burlington); MTD Kingston Basses International Emerging Artist; Bartolini Electronics Emerging Artist
    You'll be ecstatic...sounds great through a couple of 4x10s, can't wait to try it through some 8x10s and/or 8x8s
     
  6. Can anyone else back this up?
     
  7. Rezdog

    Rezdog Supporting Member

    Feb 17, 2004
    T.Rez, Canada
    Greetings,
    You say that you've been able to push a pair of 410's with the new Traynor and yet rok51 couldn't get it to push a pair of GS112's hmmm..... So I gotta ask, when you were running the 410's could you get alot of volume out of it and was it able to handle a low B without mudding? That's assuming all the other components could do a low B justice.Thanks,
    Rezdog
     
  8. RevGroove

    RevGroove Commercial User

    Jul 21, 2002
    Burlington ON Canada
    Manager, Account Services: Long & McQuade Ltd. (Burlington); MTD Kingston Basses International Emerging Artist; Bartolini Electronics Emerging Artist
    Say, that is weird!

    rok51, a little more info on the circumstances please!

    I just set the impedence to 4ohms, stacked everything up; I did not daisy chain the speakers (2 XC410s, and yes, I used non-shielded/speaker cable), I gave each one it's own output jack.

    A fellow employee politely asked me to turn down the volume...in a Long & McQuades, that tells you how loud it was! I played a Warwick Corvette 5 string through it...actually, it may have been a Streamer, I can't remember...unable to detect any mud in the low end at the time.