That 400 is an absolute monster. The best 6 tube out there IMO - I liked the EQ even better than the 225.
Congrats to you ebulakowski for a wise investment.
Congrats to you ebulakowski for a wise investment.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
The Official Reeves Bass Amp Thread
- Thread starter SactoBass
- Start date
I've used the DI on the Reeves several times, but have only played the 400+ "naked".
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,950
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
When I have used my C225 live, we always mic'd the cab. But, referring to our review in issue #2, I see that the DI is tied to the output transformer, so it's going to be post tone stack, post master volume.
The Reeves (and my first Hiwatt )have been the only Tube amps to take me away from the Solid State world. As said before, the tightness, clarity or many SS heads I love, but with the addition of "stadium lows' and that 3D tube character. Plus on cold gigs you have a hand warmer.
I am happy to brag that I am the proud new schlepper of this head with a NV610. Tom, might I suggest that 'Stadium lows' have medicinal properties. They somehow always cure my back pain of loading an 80 lbs head.
Congrats! I bet the NV610 w/ the 400 is awesome. It would be bonecrushing with 2 NV610's.
I'm so happy to read here that your reviews match my initial evaluation.
I've been so pre-occupied testing guitar speaker blends and my new Reeves Amps,
that I haven't got around to recording my 225 proper into my DAW.
The words you keep seeing in every single Reeves review is RICH Tone.
On the comments about mids, I think some of that may be coming from
the different basses people are plugging in.
No other amp I've owned lets the natural voice of the instrument shine through like
my Reeves. You can really hear the differences in each instrument.
I'm also stunned not to see more Reeves 225s & 400's in current concert footage.
While I can't personally see needing any more volume, the tube upgrade sounds interesting. The KT88's still totally rock when you dime both pre-gains and run guitars
through the 225 with the master at about 10:00.
Your guitar players should totally check out the new Reeves Custom 50 'Jimmy'
Everything you love about the 225 for bass, is there for guitar in the Jimmy.
I've been so pre-occupied testing guitar speaker blends and my new Reeves Amps,
that I haven't got around to recording my 225 proper into my DAW.
The words you keep seeing in every single Reeves review is RICH Tone.
On the comments about mids, I think some of that may be coming from
the different basses people are plugging in.
No other amp I've owned lets the natural voice of the instrument shine through like
my Reeves. You can really hear the differences in each instrument.
I'm also stunned not to see more Reeves 225s & 400's in current concert footage.
While I can't personally see needing any more volume, the tube upgrade sounds interesting. The KT88's still totally rock when you dime both pre-gains and run guitars
through the 225 with the master at about 10:00.
Your guitar players should totally check out the new Reeves Custom 50 'Jimmy'
Everything you love about the 225 for bass, is there for guitar in the Jimmy.
I spent a good amount of time using these basses and a few others to compare the tone stacks of the C225 and C400, and have also gigged both with that 4003 a few times.
For lack of a better description, they pretty much sound like you would expect; a Ric through a big, rich and clean tube amp with singing highs and bottom end for days.
Live I generally ran the Ric's bridge into the Bright channel and the neck into the Normal channel, lots of tonal flexibility but still very "Ric"ish overall.
I know I am late to the party on this; however, I am saving up right now for either the Reeves 225 or the Verellan Meatsmoke. Can anyone compare the two of these amps at all? 
Much appreciated.
Much appreciated.
Pretty sure the Reeves C225 would be cleaner, but not necessarily, given that the Meatsmoke is 300 watts.
I was thinking the same thing. I know the gain channel on the MS is easy to adjust to, but the Reeves seems a little more complicated in getting more grit out of it. However, and this is just me, the Reeves seems like a really versatile amplifier, and the MS seems more akin to a lot of heavier music. I guess that is just who buys into that company more, though.
I am also curious if the Reeves is built better, being that it is Mil-Spec.
I am also curious if the Reeves is built better, being that it is Mil-Spec.
Are the tone stacks the same in the 225 and the 400? Also, if the DI is post master volume, does this mean the DI level is controlled by the master volume?
My impression (after trying out both) was that the bass knob tapers up a lot quicker on the 225...it took me a little fiddling for me to finesse what I like, but once I there that was that. The 400 seemed a bit more linear and easier... just my take, though.
Just curious if anyone has measured the output wattage of the 400? I know the 400 has a significantly larger OT, I'm wondering if you squeeze 400 watts out of 6 KT88's.
Since it is tapped off of the output transformer, it is post everything except the speaker load. Gain and master volume settings will affect the DI output level.
