Tech 21 VT Bass 1969 head!

[bongomania]

...then I can figure out the tube vs SS power rating debate for myself and be able to answer which 300 watts is more.

That's fine, enjoy yourself (seriously!), but be aware first that the whole reason "tube watts" even came up in this thread is because Tech21 is trying to bamboozle the consumer by replacing the undesirable term "solid state" with the much more vintage and tubey-sounding term "analog".


As they say on the internet, "it's a trap!"

 

[jasonbraatz]

the first sheesh. i mean, i have no idea what band you play in or how much you need, but i don't think i've ever done a gig in my life where i needed 300w, and i've played in some very loud bands.

Then you're either using 300 tube watts, lots of really efficient speakers, or your "very loud" isn't the same as mine.

IMHO, the weight is a bigger handicap than the wattage.

Right, if it was 300 watts in something the size of the VT deluxe pedal that'd be a different story.

 

[christw]

That's fine, enjoy yourself (seriously!), but be aware first that the whole reason "tube watts" even came up in this thread is because Tech21 is trying to bamboozle the consumer by replacing the undesirable term "solid state" with the much more vintage and tubey-sounding term "analog".


As they say on the internet, "it's a trap!"

This is certainly not the same kind of trap.

I agree that there is a lot of marketing lingo being thrown around and it's something that every company is guilty of. They're trying to make money! I'm just hoping to put this little bit of it to the challenge. I think several of us on this forum might be interested in this head if it can actually keeping up with the big guns under equal conditions. That's what I want to find out.

To clarify again, I probably won't be buying this head to replace my SVT-II. I just want to see how it competes. If I'm lucky, I'll find one at a music retailer around here to try without having to buy.

 

[JimmyM]

Then you're either using 300 tube watts, lots of really efficient speakers, or your "very loud" isn't the same as mine.

i can allow for those possibilities, but 300w hasn't changed in the 36 years i've been playing and loud is still loud.

 

[maevinj]

I like how so many people are bashing this product before they've even played it. Also If you think you need more than 300 watts, then this amp obviously isn't for you and you should move on.

 

[Rimshot]

How many watts is an SVT II Pro?

When did 'tube watts' mean more than 'ss watts' if one is talking about clean headroom and not driving it into clipping/distortion (where tube amps remains musical to the ear but ss amps do not?

Isn't it all about perceived volume? Have I missed the boat entirely? Isn't a watt a watt a watt?

 

[Rimshot]

I like how so many people are bashing this product before they've even played it. Also If you think you need more than 300 watts, then this amp obviously isn't for you and you should move on.

Mega-dittos!
+999,999,999
What he said.

 

[andrew]

the first sheesh. i mean, i have no idea what band you play in or how much you need, but i don't think i've ever done a gig in my life where i needed 300w, and i've played in some very loud bands.

Let me put it this way, my '73 SVT rated at 300 watts is plenty loud for my needs. I did not find the Landmark 300 (which is the same power amp in the 1969, also rated as 300 watts) loud enough for my needs.

And to be clear, I'm a fan of Tech 21's gear and own a few things they've made and think they're great. The Landmark 300 is a cool amp and I'm sure the 1969 will be too, but that doesn't benefit me if the amp can't do what I need it to do.

 

[christw]

How many watts is an SVT II Pro?

When did 'tube watts' mean more than 'ss watts' if one is talking about clean headroom and not driving it into clipping/distortion (where tube amps remains musical to the ear but ss amps do not?

Isn't it all about perceived volume? Have I missed the boat entirely? Isn't a watt a watt a watt?

I'm with you here. Besides variations due to different THD specs in rating, 300w should be 300w. However, audible clipping and what the amplifiers sound like at that point may be very different. That's why I'm going to put 'em side by side and check it out.

Let me put it this way, my '73 SVT rated at 300 watts is plenty loud for my needs. I did not find the Landmark 300 (which is the same power amp in the 1969, also rated as 300 watts) loud enough for my needs.

And to be clear, I'm a fan of Tech 21's gear and own a few things they've made and think they're great. The Landmark 300 is a cool amp and I'm sure the 1969 will be too, but that doesn't benefit me if the amp can't do what I need it to do.

These are the reasons I want to do this. I want to see how close their perceived volumes are both before and during noticable clipping. Edit: To be clear, I think what we're truly arguing is how far these amplifiers will go after we hit that 300 watts clean headroom cap.

 

[rpsands]

I like how so many people are bashing this product before they've even played it. Also If you think you need more than 300 watts, then this amp obviously isn't for you and you should move on.

Yeah, heaven forbid someone post an opinion on the internet!

 

[rockstarbassist]

I want specs, or kill it wif fire.

 

[maevinj]

Yeah, heaven forbid someone post an opinion on the internet!

Trolls will always be trolls right?

 

[andrew]

Trolls will always be trolls right?

Please point out the trolling in this thread.

 

[Rimshot]

I don't think it has anything to do with opinions. Many people in this thread have stated their opinions quite well and in non-confrontational manner.

HOWEVER, when an opinion is stated as unopposable (is that a word) fact, it get's into a whole other area. All this for an untested piece of equipment!

(P.S., if anyone wants to sell me their VT pedal cheap... )

 

[Jared Lash]

i can allow for those possibilities, but 300w hasn't changed in the 36 years i've been playing and loud is still loud.

How often have I really needed 300+ Watts? Not all that often really. Most of my amps over the last 5 or 6 years have been rated at 500 W (LMII, Aggy AG500 etc) or 750 W (DB750, GK 1001RB-II) or more (Carvin B1500) and I could probably count on one hand how many times I didn't have FOH support and was really cranking out 400 W or more with any of them.

That said, I don't want to have to feel like I'm on the verge of clipping my amp to get through every gig. I absolutely love the tone of my Walkabout and for a lot of situations it is awesome. But for super loud mixes I don't want to have to strain it to be heard. Especially since I want to overdrive it for tone, not to wring extra juice out of it.

I like how so many people are bashing this product before they've even played it. Also If you think you need more than 300 watts, then this amp obviously isn't for you and you should move on.

But that's the whole point. Up the output a bit and Tech21 would likely have a lot more customers. I don't think most people are "bashing" the 1969 because they think it's a bad idea but because they think it's a very good idea that could have been better.

It's a 2 rack space, 23 lb amp that puts out 300 W and is listed (at least here) for over $1000. It's a legitimate question to ask why I would go that route when I can get any number of 500 W micro amps and a VT Deluxe pedal and still have hundreds of dollars left over.

And to be clear I like VT Bass products. I've used a BDDI, BDDI Deluxe, VT Bass and RBI at various points and gotten good use out of all of them.

 

[jasonbraatz]

The issue isn't the amp. Tech21 has every right to make whatever they want and the market will bear whether that was the right choice or not.

But that "analog watts" stuff isn't marketing speak, it's bull...speak.

 

[christw]

...It's a 2 rack space, 23 lb amp that puts out 300 W and is listed (at least here) for over $1000. It's a legitimate question to ask why I would go that route when I can get any number of 500 W micro amps and a VT Deluxe pedal and still have hundreds of dollars left over.

And to be clear I like VT Bass products. I've used a BDDI, BDDI Deluxe, VT Bass and RBI at various points and gotten good use out of all of them.

I have a feeling that the price you found is the full MSRP before an actual common street value hits for the amp. At least, I hope...

 

[4Mal]

I was actaully getting kind of enthused about this head - 300 in to 8 (it is into 8 right ?) is plenty for me - A k-buck though? that makes no sense whatsoever ... I hope the Tech 21 marketing guy get's a link to this thread ...

There is one point about the power section that bears thinking about. It's that 'legendary' GK growl. I think most Gk fans (like me) regard that the 800 RB has a real different level of growl, grunt, punch and grind to it. It makes the other Gk heads sound polite Loud, but polite. From what I understand, the 800 power section is a rather different architecture than the later 700/1001 RB II series. If Tech21 is copping a page from that book, rather than from the micro head book, it may be that they feel that power section gives them an edge tonally. Kinda like the old Gk 800.

Nobody has ever told me that my old WT-800 wasn't loud enough and I've often run one side only ... My Gk MB2-500, ditto ... Of course I embraced that playing at reasonable stage volume and letting the FOH handle the heavy lifting actually enhances my band's sound as then the singers can actually hear themselves... Guitarists that understand how good a Fender Deluxe or Princeton Reverb can sound rather than needing a half stack help to that end as well...

my advice to the kilo watt is just enough crowd is - learn to sing ... then get a new gig. You'll be amazed at how cool it is to get in the car after a gig and not have your ears ring... yeah, I know ...

 

[jmattbassplaya]

i can allow for those possibilities, but 300w hasn't changed in the 36 years i've been playing and loud is still loud.

I mean, a 300watt Ampeg SVT tube amp vs a 300watt Ashdown MAG300 ss amp isn't even going to be close in terms of loudness and headroom when played through the same cabinet. I can make the Ampeg work for anything and everything. The MAG300 is only usable for small gigs and practices. Heck, I'd even say an Markbass LMII/III wouldn't be able to handle everything I'd like it too, even though it's got 200 more watts to it and is in a much lighter and smaller package.

 

[JimmyM]

I mean, a 300watt Ampeg SVT tube amp vs a 300watt Ashdown MAG300 ss amp isn't even going to be close in terms of loudness and headroom when played through the same cabinet. I can make the Ampeg work for anything and everything. The MAG300 is only usable for small gigs and practices. Heck, I'd even say an Markbass LMII/III wouldn't be able to handle everything I'd like it too, even though it's got 200 more watts to it and is in a much lighter and smaller package.

i used to own an lmii and i once compared its available clean volume to the svt in my 4 ohm 810. the lmii edged it out slightly, but only slightly. of course there are way more important things to me than volume, so i ultimately stuck with the svt. but i would agree that the way the svt still sounds great when you push it a little over the edge would give it the volume edge at 300w.