Tech 21 VT Bass 1969 head!

[Fuzzbass]

300W is not enough for my busiest band. I've gotta compete with a 100W Mesa 4x12 rig in a loud hard rock band that uses PA for vocals and kick drum only.

That said: even though the 1969 head won't work for me (not in that band), I'm not ready to declare it a flop. I agree with Jimmy that 300W is plenty for the majority of players... those who don't need to be as stupid loud as I do. And it seems to me that the majority prefer the relative simplicity of a consolidated head to a pre/power rack rig.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Jmattbassplaya: in my five minutes of omnipotence, I have just given Tech 21 years of experience in the design of Class D power amps, and I've put you in charge of a new Tech 21 product - an SVT-inspired integrated amp. What would you produce? Would the power stage be Class AB or D? How many watts? Describe the target market for your product.

I'm not trying to pick on you; I'm genuinely curious.

I totally understand. I think Charlie gave a great example of what the amp could be, and I like the concept of his amp. Personally, mine would look something more like this:

-Class D
-450w at 8ohms, 750w at 4ohms
-Weight: ~ 15lbs
-Size: Two spaces in a rackmount

-Three programmable channels (ala the VT Deluxe)
-Parametric Mid control for each channel
-Blend control
-Master volume control
-Channel selector switch on the front
-Mute switch on the front
-Speaker sim switch on the front
-Optional footswitch to control channel selection, mute, and speaker sim

-Tuner out
-XLR out
-Line out level control on the front
-Ground lift
-Speakon out, 1/4th out
-Effects loop

-Street Value: $850-$900

I'll type my reasoning after dinner

 

[CharlieC]

I totally understand. I think Charlie gave a great example of what the amp could be, and I like the concept of his amp. Personally, mine would look something more like this

jmatt, you know what they say about "great minds"

Hey, want a job at my booth at NAMM 2012?

Rumor has it, the Jagermeister Girls will be next to us signing posters

Cheers!

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

300W is not enough for my busiest band. I've gotta compete with a 100W Mesa 4x12 rig in a loud hard rock band that uses PA for vocals and kick drum only.

That said: even though the 1969 head won't work for me (not in that band), I'm not ready to declare it a flop. I agree with Jimmy that 300W is plenty for the majority of players... those who don't need to be as stupid loud as I do. And it seems to me that the majority prefer the relative simplicity of a consolidated head to a pre/power rack rig.

Hmmm... I think you are overestimating your need for watts.

 

[Lowbrow]

300W is not enough for my busiest band. ... I agree with Jimmy that 300W is plenty for the majority of players... And it seems to me that the majority prefer the relative simplicity of a consolidated head to a pre/power rack rig.

+1 sez it well, thanks. Might be too expensive, though.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

+1 sez it well, thanks. Might be too expensive, though.

I was pondering this while doing work - this WOULD be a very desirable head, were it a bit cheaper. Alas...

 

[jmattbassplaya]

jmatt, you know what they say about "great minds"

Hey, want a job at my booth at NAMM 2012?

Rumor has it, the Jagermeister Girls will be next to us signing posters

Cheers!

Hey, if you're offering then I'm taking. I'd have a hard time saying no to that gig!

 

[PunkSweeper]

Didn't read the thread, but I'd be interested in knowing how much power an SVT is passing when it's wide open and grinding. 300 watts for an SVT is well before it even goes into compression, if the RMS ratings are to be believed. I wouldn't be surprised if a fully cranked SVT is passing over 400 watts continuously.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

We recently borrowed a vintage Ampeg SVT to compare to our new VT Bass 1969 amp. We wanted to do a direct apples to apples comparison.We designed our new amp to be as loud as an original SVT without the added weight. The Ampeg SVT was re-tubed and biased for the test. This is a pretty straightforward basic audio test. We calibrated the inputs of both amps with a 100mv signal (the approximate output of a passive bass guitar), set both amps flat (we used an FFT analyzer) used the same cabs (only the grills are different) at the same impedance, used the same bass guitar and just did an A/B comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtF0_UpVCJM

Okay that was interesting. But most of the guys I know with SVT's live in the zone past clipping. With the eq very far from flat. This is what I am curious about, how much does the power amp respond to being fed a ton of low mid or a ton of bass. On an SVT the frequencies
saturate and sustain in a way that just feels like a wall of bass. I cant imagine a 345 watt SS amp duplicating that.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Hmmm... I think you are overestimating your need for watts.

I use the Bergantino NV610, a sealed cab that's not the most efficient. Also, that particular band plays a lot of modern rock, so I'm often down low on my five string.

Forgot to mention: with that band, one channel of a 600Wx2 power amp is usually not enough! Clip city. Gotta bridge the amp.

 

[JGR]

For the most part, this has very little to do with how much power the amp has, and more to do with what type of pot was used for the master volume. I hear this a lot on TB where people talk about the amp being SO loud "because I was rattling the walls with the volume on 3." More than likely, it's not the power section, it's the fact that they are using a linear pot for the master volume.

If you use a linear pot, the volume will increase dramatically in the first portion of the pots rotation, and less dramatically as the volume knob goes higher. A log (logarithmic) taper pot is just the opposite and will give you very little output in the the first half of the pot's rotation and an increasing amount as the volume knob get's closer to max. A log taper pot is supposed to more closely resemble how our ears perceive volume. It's a common practice for amps to use a linear pot to make it seem like the amp has tons of power. From your description, it sounds like your amp uses a log taper pot. It might only be putting out 10% to 20% of the amps potential volume with the master volume up 50%. What's important is the actual output volume of the amp and not the position of the volume knob.

This is a great point. On my Landmark 600, I have to crank the master a lot higher than normal, but it never runs out of steam. Definitely a case of the pot taper. I think this is also true with the Mesa M6/M9 but in reverse - while they have a lot of power, the volume doesn't to much past 10 or 11 o'clock - yes, I was crazy enough to find out - I cranked mine until the jewel lamp dimmed on the transients...

 

[JGR]

We recently borrowed a vintage Ampeg SVT to compare to our new VT Bass 1969 amp. We wanted to do a direct apples to apples comparison.We designed our new amp to be as loud as an original SVT without the added weight. The Ampeg SVT was re-tubed and biased for the test. This is a pretty straightforward basic audio test. We calibrated the inputs of both amps with a 100mv signal (the approximate output of a passive bass guitar), set both amps flat (we used an FFT analyzer) used the same cabs (only the grills are different) at the same impedance, used the same bass guitar and just did an A/B comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtF0_UpVCJM

Kudos to you guys for taking the time to put this together. Those cabs on the right look sweet!

For all the folks complaining about Tech 21's marketing, they are much less boisterous than a lot of companies. I don't hear anyone complaining about Mesa Boogie (who I like very much) with all their BS Harley and racing analogies, and continued patenting of general knowledge/ideas that have been around since the 1940's/50's, not to mention their blatent ripoff of Mike Soldano's SLO with the Dual Recto (as did several others), but I digress... cut them some slack.

I would imagine that if a tube SVT through whatever cab provides you with the volume you need, then there is probably a good chance the 1969 will too. I think that is what the good folks at Tech 21 are trying to say, and demonstrate with this video. Based on my experience with their products, I would take their word for it.

That said, I could easily crank my SVT's and DB728's to levels where I ran out of juice because I like to play stupid loud, so I would prefer more headroom. Should I be playing that loud - heck no - but I like to, and I can. Rock on.

 

[One Drop]

Okay that was interesting. But most of the guys I know with SVT's live in the zone past clipping. With the eq very far from flat. This is what I am curious about, how much does the power amp respond to being fed a ton of low mid or a ton of bass. On an SVT the frequencies
saturate and sustain in a way that just feels like a wall of bass. I cant imagine a 345 watt SS amp duplicating that.

I think that video is instructive, and is a good argument against it being underpowered. If that amp gets that loud clean then it surely has enough power for most people.

Past clipping I'm sure the power an SVT puts out won't top out much higher than 50w over clean, and it's the compression and power tube OD in conjunction with the preamp design that deliver the classic overdriven SVT tones. The VT preamp emulates these effects convincingly, and it seems they've coupled it to a power amp that behaves just like the SVT one. Kudos, it seems like an excellent option for those to whom this amp is targeted: SVT users who want a lighter smaller option.

Personally I don't know anyone who uses extreme EQ with their SVTs. If you crank the mids or bass you will probably just sound like crap. With my SVT pedal and a clean SS amp I can get that wall of bass and endless hi gain sustain at very low volumes, so no reason you can't get it from that amp. Watts is watts and a clean 110db is bloody loud. OD with the added compression means you can get audibly louder with the Tech 21 so I doubt many people would find it underpowered in the real world, just as the SVT is powerful enough for most bassists.

In the old days because of the earlier SS amp designs and their gain structures, the way they dispensed power and reacted to clipping, there might have been something to the idea you needed more watts than with an tube rig, but amps like this show it is no longer necessarily the case..

 

[12bass]

We recently borrowed a vintage Ampeg SVT to compare to our new VT Bass 1969 amp. We wanted to do a direct apples to apples comparison.We designed our new amp to be as loud as an original SVT without the added weight. The Ampeg SVT was re-tubed and biased for the test. This is a pretty straightforward basic audio test. We calibrated the inputs of both amps with a 100mv signal (the approximate output of a passive bass guitar), set both amps flat (we used an FFT analyzer) used the same cabs (only the grills are different) at the same impedance, used the same bass guitar and just did an A/B comparison.

Thanks for the clip.

The tonality is similar... though it sounds like there's more bottom in the VT sound. SVT sounds a tad thinner, with a slight "gank" in the midrange.

BTW, that old SVT might be underperforming a little, at least compared to others I've seen tested.

 

[CharlieC]

Here's my business plan worth 2 cents:

Take the VT Deluxe, the majorly upgraded VT Bass, with 3 programmable channels + XLR out

Couple it with a now common-place, Class D engine ala Crown XLS1000 or Peavey IPR 1600 (~1000 watts @ 4-ohms)

Now add the following mods that other 3rd-parties continue to successfully impart on existing VT pedals:

1. the infamous "Blend" knob
2. speaker sim defeat switch

Now fix the legacy issues carried forward from the Landmark 300 design

1. provide a front panel "Mute" switch (so that use of a footswitch is now optional)
2. provide industry-standard Speakon outs

Street price = $849

Weight = 10-pounds

Target Market = everyone who bought the previous pedals + new customers

See you at NAMM 2012 in the "Don't Hold Your Breath" booth

Sure, it could be a flop, what do I know?

... continued

Product Name = VT Legend

So I will offer the VT Bass, VT Deluxe + now the VT Legend head (like Landmark, but not.)

Or if I wanted to play-off the "rocket-engine" marketing line, maybe call it the VT RockHead.

Worst case scenario:

The apparent trend now in bass amplification is the use of Class D.

If for whatever technological, philosophical or financial reason I cannot market with Class D then I will not recycle an older, outdated design from a past product. And if pressed to recycle, I would at least make an attempt to address any shortcomings it could now be regarded as having in 2011.

So let me avoid the risk, expense, and aggravation altogether now and simply produce a rack-mountable preamp-only unit, with all the same bells + whistles as spec'd above. This product would pair well with any of the 3rd-party Class D amps readily available, and at the same time it would simply be the next progression in the product line.

Product Name = VT Premier

Best of all, I know of a place called TalkBass where I could gain all the market research I would need for the best chance success, for free, one-on-one with my current + future customers.

Again, this is all my 2 cents, what do I know?

Thanks for allowing me to indulge.

Cheers!

 

[bongomania]

Best of all, I know of a place called TalkBass where I could gain all the market research I would need for the best chance success, for free, one-on-one with my current + future customers.

This is what gets me the most. I've made the same complaint about a couple of other popular brands here. They don't tap into this free gold mine of a resource during the R&D stage, they just design myopically, with input from only a small handful of endorsers at best.

 

[One Drop]

They should call it the SSVT, heh, heh.

I can't believe the negative responses to this amp. It seems like a decent concept, well executed, that will appeal to a lot of bassists, and is based on technology they designed and tested already. Call it recycling, I call it a good way to do business.

Anything rackmounted is an entirely different beast and will not appeal to most players who use integrated amps, and vice versa.

All this talk about the Streamliner, but it doesn't try to do the same thing.

 

[tech21nyc]

One further question... when pushed farther into audible clipping, how do their wattages and volumes compare?

Okay that was interesting. But most of the guys I know with SVT's live in the zone past clipping. With the eq very far from flat. This is what I am curious about, how much does the power amp respond to being fed a ton of low mid or a ton of bass. On an SVT the frequencies
saturate and sustain in a way that just feels like a wall of bass. I cant imagine a 345 watt SS amp duplicating that.

You can't really measure the wattage once the amp goes into hard clipping. We tend to equate "wattage" with volume. The wattage rating of a speaker is the power that the voice coil can handle before it burns out. It's one factor in the "loudness" equation. The speakers sensitivity, efficiency, dispersion and the design of your speaker cabinet will ultimately determine how much volume can be produced. By doubling your power will all things being equal you will have an increase of "volume" that is only 3dB which isn't that great. The SPL meter is really a better tool for measuring the actual volume. Unfortunately the SPL meter and microphone can't really give you the sense of low end and power that you feel in front of the cabs.

We will probably do another video showing both amps over driven soon.

BTW, that old SVT might be underperforming a little, at least compared to others I've seen tested.

Our tech here also fixes amps and he has worked on a number of SVT's over the years. He said he hasn't seen one yet that puts out 300 watts rms. This is not saying the difference between the amps is all that great. 285 or 345 watts as you can see by the decimal meter is not a huge jump. The thing is we don't really know offhand how Ampeg arrived at that spec all those years ago. 300 watts at what %THD. .05%,1%,5%? Does anyone have an old Ampeg SVT manual?

 

[Rimshot]

ah, Dragon Attack!

 

[One Drop]

This is what gets me the most. I've made the same complaint about a couple of other popular brands here. They don't tap into this free gold mine of a resource during the R&D stage, they just design myopically, with input from only a small handful of endorsers at best.

Maybe they do, not just so obviously.

If I was designing a product for the bass market, I might decide to lurk this forum to look for holes in the market, to learn from how other products were accepted, etc, but I would not necessarily go down the route of actively using the input of TBers during the conception or design stage. I might sound out endorsing artists and use them for testing ideas, I might blindly believe in my product based my own experiences, or on proper market research conducted in secret, etc. etc.

Sometimes I think there is some sour grapes involved when a few of the TB regulars who are used to being listened to so keenly are ignored (not accusing you of this, bongomania) or not included in the process. It's easy to get an exaggerated sense of one's importance here. I give out very strong opinions because I believe in them and because they are based on my needs and experiences, but I really don't expect anyone else to do as I do or to even believe me at all, especially since my experience and ability is severely limited in comparison to countless bassists here.

When it comes down to it there are a few very vocal and knowledgeable posters here (not always the having BOTH attributes), a lot of people with extremely variable experience and variably useful opinions, and a lot of people who have never formed their own opinion and just follow what others say. Gear companies have to design for a few years ahead, for multiple markets, and for a much wider range of musicians than those that tend to post most often. They also have to design for their own company's existing customers' expectations, and certain price points. They have to design and build based on where their experience and competency lies as well, not some perfect world where every innovation is instantly and eagerly awaited, where the consumer understands every issue fully, and makes rational decisions based on direct comparisons of every similar product in its class.

I'm not denying this board's usefulness as a marketing tool (i.e. market research as well as marketing a finished product), but for every company that is successful at using TB this way there is another that manages to succeed without it, or at least without appearing to use it, and this in every category of bass gear.

In the end, there is nothing worse than using a technology poorly. It is evident that some companies don't have the ability, time, resources, personnel, or knowledge to use viral marketing, discussion forums, etc., to their or their customers' advantage, so it's best they stay out of it entirely, IMO.