• 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.

POLL--Thread Idea: (Ginormous Tube Amps)

1. Are you interested (Yes/No). 2. What is the minimum power rating.

  • 1. Yes.

    Votes: 46 44.7%

  • 1. No.

    Votes: 42 40.8%

  • 2. Rated for 350 tube Watts or more.

    Votes: 39 37.9%

  • 2. Rated for 400 tube Watts or more.

    Votes: 16 15.5%

  • 3. Meh, I would rather daydream about 350 bags of carrots.

    Votes: 15 14.6%

  • 4. I agree--No need to issue and track club numbers.

    Votes: 22 21.4%

  • 4. It has to be a club, or else!

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Total voters
    103
  • Poll closed .
#21
JimChjones said:
Is there a point to having a massive tube amp? If I understand things correctly you're not going to get output tubes bigger than a 6550. So for 600w what's the difference between having one amp with say 12 output tubes, and 3 amps with 4 tubes each?
Click to expand...

Isn't it enough that some people simply like big tube amps?

I don't have any idea which direction the thread will go, but some people on TalkBass are running KT120.

In my experience the number and type of tubes doesn't have much as much impact on the way an amp sounds and respond as most people probably think. Obviously there is some correlation to how much power an amp can be designed to produce, that is tied to the type and number of tubes.
 
#22
I can easily set similar/same tones for these 2 heads and do a set with each to give them a run. They also work very well with active basses where I use Alembic or Warwick in lieu of my Gibsons.
Screenshot_20220915-130115_YouTube.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fishheadjoe, rodl2005, 6thplanet and 1 other person
#26
Justifying the proposed thread does not require a belief that you think ginormous tube amps are practical in any way. I don't care if you gig one, own one, or even want one. The only requirement is that you are fascinated and/or amused by their existence enough to think it would be nice (dare I see useful) to have a thread dedicated to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coot, stigbeve, Goatrope and 5 others
#28
My amp I use most often is a tube amp - all 30W of CTM-30 :D. It's used either where more power would be too much, or where I have PA support. Either way, I can usually push it up against that sweet saturation point.

But there's something enthralling to me about big tube amps. Heat these big arcane devices until they glow orange inside... apply scorching voltages that would kill you if you so much as touch your finger to them... pass that power through massive iron and copper assemblies... send it to towering piles of speakers... make sound that you can barely tolerate standing in front of, but sounds like god a few hundred feet away.

I'm hoping there will be a thread that features pictures of impractically large bass tube amplification systems (either members' own, or historical photos), arrays of glowing tubes, schematics, lore, amp projects (real or fantasy)... yeah, tube amp pr0n of all sorts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: badinage and Wasnex
#30
Please review, comment, make suggestions.

Proposed list of qualifying amps (350 tube Watts or more clean):

Ashdown Small Block 427
Ashdown BTA 400 *
Fender 400PS
Hiwatt DR405
Marshall VBA 400
Mesa Strategy Eight:88
Peavey Classic 400
Reeves 400
Siegmund Big Boy 330
Trace Elliot VA350*
Trace Elliot VA400*
Trace Elliot HexaValve*
Trace Elliot V6
Trace Elliot V8

* = Reverse hybrid with solid state preamp. Let me know if you agree or disagree with these amps being primary subjects.

We can certainly discuss the Mesa 400 and 400+ and how they compare, but neither is 350W RMS or more clean, so I hadn't planned to list them as primary subjects.

I also did not plan to list stand alone tube power amps as primary subjects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tombowlus
#32
walterw said:
so aside from a few unicorns (fender ps 400, trace, peavey classic 400, some weird '80s marshalls) this thread is pretty much about the SVT and the boogie 400+ isn't it?

i'm in!
Click to expand...

:facepalm: Trouble maker :rolleyes:.

:roflmao:

Actually I think the early SVTs with 6146 output tubes might do >350W clean. But mentioning any SVT would probably be confusing and put us on a slippery slope. Besides, we already talk plenty about SVTs :bored:.
 
#33
Wasnex said:
We can certainly discuss the Mesa 400 and 400+ and how they compare, but neither is 350W RMS or more clean, so I hadn't planned to list them as primary subjects.
Click to expand...
so we're excluding SVTs and 400+'s?

seems like that knocks out the vast majority of amps in this class that people will have actual experience with
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim C, agedhorse and pfschim
#35
Wasnex said:
Please review, comment, make suggestions.

Proposed list of qualifying amps (350 tube Watts or more clean):

Ashdown Small Block 427
Ashdown BTA 400 *
Fender 400PS
Hiwatt DR405
Marshall VBA 400
Mesa Strategy Eight:88
Peavey Classic 400
Reeves 400
Siegmund Big Boy 330
Trace Elliot VA350*
Trace Elliot VA400*
Trace Elliot HexaValve*
Trace Elliot V6
Trace Elliot V8

* = Reverse hybrid with solid state preamp. Let me know if you agree or disagree with these amps being primary subjects.

We can certainly discuss the Mesa 400 and 400+ and how they compare, but neither is 350W RMS or more clean, so I hadn't planned to list them as primary subjects.

I also did not plan to list stand alone tube power amps as primary subjects.
Click to expand...
The Bass 400+ should qualify, it delivers ~350+ watts rms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wasnex
#36
walterw said:
so we're excluding SVTs and 400+'s? seems like that knocks out the vast majority of amps in this class that people will have actual experience with
Click to expand...

Yes, that is by design.

My goal was to start a thread where we discuss primarily amps that are somewhat absurd and rare. We already have a Low-Wattage Tubester thread that is limited to 50W or less. This thread is intended to focus discussion on the opposite end of the power spectrum; 350W minimum is currently the assumed criteria. I do understand that this will limit the number of people who want to participate, but anyone can participate if they want.

SVTs and the 400+ are not excluded from discussion, but they are not the intended subject. For example discussion on how an SVT or 400+ compares to a Marshall VBA 400 would be entirely on topic....but the VBA is the intended subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim C, badinage, rodl2005 and 1 other person
#37
agedhorse said:
The Bass 400+ should qualify, it delivers ~350+ watts rms.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I have found several reports of about 270W (clean) for the 400+ . Also lot's of people who say SVTs are louder...and from what I have seen SVTs frequently don't meet their 300W clean power spec.

I don't have any means of accurately measuring power, but I may have to do a couple of grudge matches pitting my 69 and 87 SVT against my 400+. I do know the 400+ kicks like mule, but I have not felt the need to do a head-to-head...until now :nailbiting:.

There is this post where you state 390W RMS for the 400+ and explain the 500W burst rating: Ampeg SVT really 960 watts?

And there is this post from a few years earlier where you said, "...the 400+ does about 300 watts RMS continuous, but with the circuit design could do burst testing to as much as 500 watts RMS. " Do you think there would be a market for a reissue 400/400+?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim C
#40
And the Strategy claims 500 watts??? Don't crucify me it's before 06:00.
Although I wouldn't gig weekly with my 400+ anymore, 50-ish lbs in a rack is hardly as crushing as a Marshall or SVT. 50 lbs is about my limit for ownership. I weighed in this morning at 144.2 lbs. That's more than a third of my old man weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wasnex

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back