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

Sadowsky SA200

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by echo008, Nov 14, 2005.


  1. echo008

    echo008 Supporting Member

    Jan 30, 2004
    Long Island, NY
  2. Eric Moesle

    Eric Moesle Supporting Member

    Sep 21, 2001
    Columbus OH
    A great thread on this already exists, with pictures, reviews, comments, its great. Search, and ye shall be enlightened . . .
     
  3. echo008

    echo008 Supporting Member

    Jan 30, 2004
    Long Island, NY
    Guess I Posted too late, I just saw this on the Sadowsky site and got excited :) How long has this been up on the site?
    I was just there yesterday and it was not listed.
    - Tom
     
  4. Fred Labbidie

    Fred Labbidie Guest

    Apr 22, 2004
    Yikes! What's with all the hyperbole? I feel like it's Accugroove time again. (1200 drivers from a 6 continents).
    How could it take Koch 3 years to design an amp that he already had in production for Eden? I happen to agree that nothing sounds like tubes; but it's a bit puffy to call all light weight gear inferior. Fact of the matter is you actually might need more than 200 watts and the only practical way to get it may be a solid state power section.
    Lastly, I find the choice of power tubes baffling. Why not use 6550's or KT 88'S?
     
  5. Now I'm drooling!!! :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper:
     
  6. tombowlus

    tombowlus If it sounds good, it is good Gold Supporting Member

    Apr 3, 2003
    North central Ohio
    Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
    You can use 6550's in the SA200.

    [Edit: actually, according to the webpage:

    Power Tube Options: 6L6, 6550, KT66, KT88]
     
  7. tombowlus

    tombowlus If it sounds good, it is good Gold Supporting Member

    Apr 3, 2003
    North central Ohio
    Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
    Trust me, this amp is plenty different from the Eden. I happen to own both, and I am working on a detailed head to head comparison. I am a big fan of the VT-300A/B (footswitch issues aside), but the SA200 is a different and (at the risk of letting the cat out of the bag) decidedly better beast - IMHO, that is.
     
  8. Nino Valenti

    Nino Valenti Commercial User

    Feb 2, 2001
    Staten Island NYC
    Builder: Valenti Basses
    ummm.... OK :confused:
    I don't recall Roger ever saying that.
    Then this amp obviously isn't for you. I've been gigigng with a 200w Aggie DB359/GS410 and I have volume to spare. Ive been told on EVERY gig to turn down by someone in my band. (usually my guitarist wit a 100W all tube 1/2 stack)

    The proof is in the pudding. If the amp sounds awesome with the tubes that are in it, then why use 6550's or KT88's?
     
  9. jokerjkny

    jokerjkny

    Jan 19, 2002
    NY / NJ / PA
    eh,

    leaves one extra for me. :)
     
  10. Fred Labbidie

    Fred Labbidie Guest

    Apr 22, 2004

    The website infers (to me) that the movement to lightweight amps is a compromise in quality. I think that is an amazingly broad thing to imply. Maybe it isn't the same amp as the Eden, from the pictures it looks the same; but clearly it may be different, so I'll retract that. Is it for me? I like a minimum of 400 watts, so no it isn't.
    I do agree that the proof is in the pudding, especially regarding tube choice.
     
  11. cheezewiz

    cheezewiz

    Mar 27, 2002
    Ohio

    ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! :D
     
  12. Fred Labbidie

    Fred Labbidie Guest

    Apr 22, 2004
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fred Labbidie
    Is it for me? I like a minimum of 400 watts, so no it isn't.
    I




    Quote:
    CURRENT SETUP: Ampeg Portabass, Aguilar GS 112




    ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    Well, the Portabass didn't work out too well.....who knows?
    Maybe I'll buy a Sadowsky! ;)
     
  13. quallabone

    quallabone

    Aug 2, 2003
    I gig with a 200 watt all tube aguilar 359. It's louder than it needs to be for everything it's been asked to do.
     
  14. Nick man

    Nick man

    Apr 7, 2002
    Tampa Bay
    I just switched from a 3,000 Watt rack rig to a 300 watt tube amp. I might not get as much clean volume out of the new amp, but I will have more usuable volume.

    A tube amp might be putting out a certain number of watts, but if I can get more usable volume out of it then I dont care how the numbers compare.

    Id love to try this head.
     
  15. Fretless5verfan

    Fretless5verfan Supporting Member

    Jan 17, 2002
    Philadelphia
    As would i. Right now, the Marshall VBA 400, Mesa 400+, and the SA200 are competing in my mind for who will end up on top of the "Old school" rig (all tube head, NV215 cab) i'm putting together in the future.
     
  16. quallabone

    quallabone

    Aug 2, 2003
    Do yourself a favor add the (now discontinued) aguilar DB359 and DB728 to that list.
     
  17. Fretless5verfan

    Fretless5verfan Supporting Member

    Jan 17, 2002
    Philadelphia
    I'd really rather not buy aguilar gear. It'd have to be a GREAT deal for me to consider them.
     
  18. quallabone

    quallabone

    Aug 2, 2003
    fair enough
     
  19. bikeplate

    bikeplate Supporting Member

    Jun 7, 2001
    Upstate NY
    HI

    I tried one the first day they hit Brooklyn. Dont hesitate, guys. Awesome amps. Very dynamic and musical. And yes, plenty of power.

    Rob
     
  20. tombowlus

    tombowlus If it sounds good, it is good Gold Supporting Member

    Apr 3, 2003
    North central Ohio
    Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
    I haven't tried the Marshall, but to me, the only tube amp that I would even consider using over the SA200 would be an older Trace Elliot model. And for the record, I own - and like - the DB 359, DB 728, Bass 400, and others...