Tech 21 VT Bass 1969 head!

[christw]

Invalid Link Removed

I understand that this is basically two Bass VT's running the power section but now I wonder how exactly this differs from the Landmark 300 head. Still, it looks cool and it probably has bit more SVT-copping capabilities than the Landmark I'd think. I'd love to do a clean/dirty channel switching setup on this and see exactly how mean it can get.

Thoughts?

 

[jasonbraatz]

I am literally astonished at them only putting 300 watts in this thing. You can more powerful amps that fit in an altoids tin nowadays. How do you make a two rackspace head with only 300 watts?

 

[madmatt]

I am literally astonished at them only putting 300 watts in this thing. You can more powerful amps that fit in an altoids tin nowadays. How do you make a two rackspace head with only 300 watts?

The longer I have been playing I feel that anything more than 300 Watts is usually not needed.
For more power most folks use the Mains, or a seperate power amp.
But 300 is usually enough for stage volume, unless you are playing a stadium or something!

 

[fu22ba55]

I am literally astonished at them only putting 300 watts in this thing.

One man's watts are not another man's watts.

Their marketing fluff claims 300 "real world" watts, as opposed to GK watts. (Did I say that out loud?)

I guess if they're going to ape the SVT, 300 watts is a decent benchmark.

If someone wants a lightweight backup for their SVT (their target market), then 300W is plenty. (Assuming it produces the same real-world output as a vintage SVT.)

 

[christw]

Worth noting that 300 watts go a long way with an effecient cab. I barely ask anything above idle effort from my SVT-II through my 610, which is rated at 105db@1w/1m. It wasn't anywhere as loud through my SVT810. My 30w tube head through my Bad End Cab can take out your hearing. Pair this head with the right cab and mmmmm...

 

[Son of Bovril]

not to start up the chicken egg SS tube volume debate again but the 300watts from this thing are not likely to equal the 300watts from a 1969 vintage all tube SVT. Tone - yes, Volume - No

 

[andrew]

The issue isn't really if 300 watts is enough (and for me it would not be), it's that Tech 21 certainly could have made it louder.

I think the reason it's 300 watts is because they simply used the same power section in this amp as they use in their Landmark 300.

Hopefully this will lead to a VT Bass rackmount unit down the road.

 

[lobey]

Depending on the price, I'd probably buy it. The VT gets a TON of love around here, and two built into a head would be awesome, even if it's only 300 watts.

EDIT: Wait, tuner out w/ mute, and the ability to mix both channels?! Count me in!

 

[Plstrns]

It can certainly get the volume of a SVT, just not with the same enclosure.

I feel the same way, 300 "analog" watts at 20+ lbs? Really? Tech 21 should do some research before finalizing products. They released the VT- the VT deluxe- then added the speaker sim delete within what? A year??

Crap!! 300W wasn't enough for me 20 years ago when watts meant watts.

I have 3800W now, it's plenty! Yeah, I know that's only 3 db louder... My dB is different than most!!

 

[bongomania]

I am literally astonished at them only putting 300 watts in this thing. You can more powerful amps that fit in an altoids tin nowadays. How do you make a two rackspace head with only 300 watts?

Oh, that's just because this is the 1969 model. A few years from now they'll release the 2009 model with 1200 W.

 

[bongomania]

Even though I'm sure this is a very nice product in many ways, I do want to smack somebody in their marketing dept. upside the head for writing:

[it has] a rocket-engine of a power section... a monster analog power section...

Seriously, Tech21? Seriously??? Do you think your customers are all 14 years old and don't know any better?

 

[Son of Bovril]

hahaha thats hilarious!
A monster 300watt analog rocket-engine of a power section!
Bazinga!!!

 

[knappymer]

I wonder why only 300watts as well. I remember about 5 or so years ago they had the Landmark 300 and 600 heads, but for some reason discontinued the 600.

 

[lowendblues]

the VT is supposed to emulate the SVT right? Arent the vintage SVT's 300 watts?

Makes sense to me.

 

[lomo]

I am literally astonished at them only putting 300 watts in this thing. You can more powerful amps that fit in an altoids tin nowadays. How do you make a two rackspace head with only 300 watts?

+1. Dunno what they were thinking. If it was 500 at 8, 750 at 4 Ohms IMHO they'd sell a boatload.

 

[mongo2]

"a rocket-engine of a power section"

Oy.

Do they think we're idiots?

 

[kosmicwizard]

Trying the sell an underpowered overweight head on the successes of the VT pedal? For shame! I get trying to minimize R&D and use a head already in production, but to me a 1U VT pre-amp makes more sense than this. Cheers.

 

[christw]

Perhaps the use of an outdated, overweight (as consensus seems to be) power section was a cost cutting measure to keep this head available to all of the market at a low cost. Just sayin' nobody whines about the GC Acoustics power section. A similar amp with VT tone for similar cost? I'd be sold.

 

[Jonyak]

wonder how much its gonna be.

 

[kosmicwizard]

Perhaps the use of an outdated, overweight (as consensus seems to be) power section was a cost cutting measure to keep this head available to all of the market at a low cost. Just sayin' nobody whines about the GC Acoustics power section. A similar amp with VT tone for similar cost? I'd be sold.

These are some very good points. IF this is actually what Tech21 was gunning for I wish them success. I guess I just look at them as a quality company that has better things to do than compete with entry level gear. I have been wrong in the past and I thank you for showing me another way to look at this. Cheers.