btw, according to the SS lead sled designs it wouldn't make me wonder if the V-type designs as well will show no more then about 50% permanently carrying capacity. I think this was a pretty robust number, others may think differently in this regard.
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 Trace Elliot V-type Club!!
- Thread starter Mitchthebassplayer
- Start date
Whoops, iPhone typing without reading glasses. "a maximum design voltage of 800 V".
Dumb question,2-10-2
2-10-2,is that starting at the middle of the dial at 12'oclock? Dumb question I suppose? Thanks!
This is on a scale of 1 to 10, rather than clock face positions. It's based on the Fender hat knob.
A bit confusing if you amp has chicken head knobs. Equivalent in clock face would be approximately 9/5/9. IMHO a better starting point is 8:30/2:30/8 but YMMV
.
Last edited:
Was referring to an earlier suggestion on the Trace Elliot V type amp.This is on a scale of 1 to 10, rather than clock face positions. It's based on the Fender hat knob.
View attachment 3175841
A bit confusing if you amp has chicken head knobs. Equivalent in clock face would be approximately 9/5/9. IMHO a better starting point is 8:30/2:30/8 but YMMV
Me too. Notice the panel has 10 detent markings behind the chicken head knobs. 2/10/2 should be easy to setup if you just count the detents. The equivalent clock face setting is 9/5/9.
Here is how it looks with the Fender hat knobs. It's pretty much equivalent to counting the detents on the V-Type.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,945
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
Yeah, so my 2-10-2 suggestion means 2 "clicks" up on both Bass and Treble (or almost all the way off), and Mid turned all the way up.
Just an observation about the power output of the V6 here-
I had mine in the shop about a year ago and re-biased. The tech (Pat McKeever here at Chicago AmpWorks) measured the RMS output at about 365 watts- biased "normal' as opposed to 'hot' or 'cold' (and I have to admit that I don't REALLY know what that means). 6 JJ KT-88s and all original 12 ax7s and 12 au7
I suspect that Trace Elliot was simply rounding to the nearest hundred when they rated the amp- and I don't think there's really anything wrong with that for a large format all tube bass head.
I had mine in the shop about a year ago and re-biased. The tech (Pat McKeever here at Chicago AmpWorks) measured the RMS output at about 365 watts- biased "normal' as opposed to 'hot' or 'cold' (and I have to admit that I don't REALLY know what that means). 6 JJ KT-88s and all original 12 ax7s and 12 au7
I suspect that Trace Elliot was simply rounding to the nearest hundred when they rated the amp- and I don't think there's really anything wrong with that for a large format all tube bass head.
365W is a pretty respectable amount of power to get from six KT88s, but without a distortion figure you can't really say how well the amp is performing. The V-Type service manuals do not specify a distortion figure, but 5% THD is a fairly common standard for clean bench power with a tube amp.
For comparison: The SVT is supposed to put out 300W at <3% THD from 20Hz-20kHz and it runs six 6550s. I have seen several bench tests where SVTs are more likely to make about 265W at 5% THD. I believe this is due to the quality of modern tubes. So if your V6 is making 365W at <5% THD I would say that's pretty good. The V6 will easily make 400W, you'll just get more grind (distortion) from the output section.
Another comparison: Clean power for the Mesa 400+ is about 270W with twelve 6l6GCs, and the older Mesa 400 with six 6550s makes about 200W.
Yeah, I can't remember clearly, but I do know that he mentioned the distortion figure...it was either 3%, 5% or 6%.
Audibly though -what my ears tell me playing through it- I would say that the V6 is definitely growling and overdriving the power tubes once the master gets to noon and beyond. This head needs a lot of speakers in a sealed cab- like an 810 or 215 to be loud and clean. Even using it with a modern 4x10 like my Bergantino AE410 doesn't give me enough volume before distortion for an outdoor gig.
So...I'm looking for a Berg 610, Barefaced 610 or perhaps one of those Trace Elliot 1084 cabs from the 90s to match with this head.
Audibly though -what my ears tell me playing through it- I would say that the V6 is definitely growling and overdriving the power tubes once the master gets to noon and beyond. This head needs a lot of speakers in a sealed cab- like an 810 or 215 to be loud and clean. Even using it with a modern 4x10 like my Bergantino AE410 doesn't give me enough volume before distortion for an outdoor gig.
So...I'm looking for a Berg 610, Barefaced 610 or perhaps one of those Trace Elliot 1084 cabs from the 90s to match with this head.
Pretty sure I saw one of the recent, Peavey era, 8x10's for sale here on TB within the last week.
The older ones do crop up fairly frequently (I've seen about a dozen in the last 18 months).
Still sort of kicking myself for not snatching an 8x10 + matching Trace V-type hybrid, for £300 several months back - but I really didn't have the space for it, without it causing a domestic issue. Didn't want to have to leave it at the rehearsal space, and didn't want to deal with the inevitable stink eye from my band mates, when they're faced with another colossus.
It was 50w per tube, 100 per pair. I think the initial uestion is why are the 6 tube and 8 tube v6 and v8 both rated at 400w.
I get told every time the Berg NV610 is a perfect match for the V6. A guy at L&M yesterday told me his bass player is using a first year Ampeg 810 that has been cut in half. I guess it was a good idea at the time.
I retubed my SVT with Groove Tubes, when I had it. Sounded great. I have a 69 B15N that needed a power tube so I grabbed some mesa 6L6GC 440's. Was that a mistake? I read a while ago that is not the 6L6 used in the 400+. I'm getting nice tone but not as much low end as the old westinghouse's that were in there. It has the original Ampeg 6sl7's and old Mullard 5ar4.
No, but some opinions say a gold lion in v1 makes a difference. I have the original TE tubes and hear that Ruby's would be a great replacement.
So, the v6 uses higher plate dissipation than the v8? Maybe thats why there are two gain stages? either way, I miss my SVT. I can't see ever selling the V6 but i really miss my 1970 blueline. I found a beautifully restored one that he said he went back to the 6147d(?) power tubes, the ones with the white wires to the top of the tubes. But he wouldn't ship. I wonder what would sound better, a 78 Ray through the V6 or an NS2 through and SVT. (my old go to).
I like old stuff and am looking for a replacement for my 70. Are the new VR's good enough to consider? Is it truly an American made reissue with the same tone? I didn't like the classic with the master.
I have read a bench test of the V8 making over 500W. I don't remember the specific figure or if there was a THD rating included. My guess is it was pretty distorted. I have also seen it suggested that the driver setup prevents the V8 output section from being driven to its fullest potential. This is all second hand info that I cannot confirm.
For comparison, my Ashdown 427 was bench tested at 425W (clean) before it had a reliability mod recommended by Ashdown. After the mod, the power dropped to 375W. Another comparison, the Mesa Strategy manual claims approximately 465W.
I have a tolex covered V-Type, V6 and V8. Power wise, the V6 really does give the V8 a run for the money, but the V8 is a touch louder. I kind of like the natural voice of the V6 better, but IMHO the V8 is a bit more transparent.
Caution to anyone who sells a V6 to fund a V8. The V8 does a have a few extra tricks, but the V6 produces an incredible deep and focused tone that the V8 can't quite do. The original V-Type and series I V4 sounds just like the V6 and make a bit over 200W.
I agree the Russian Gold Lion sounds nice in V1 of the series I V-Types. I liked the Sino Gold Lion better in V2 of the V8.
Here are my comments on tube rolling in my V8 and V-Type.
Trace V8 Tube Rolling
Trace V-Type Tube Rolling
My V6 has the stock TE tubes in V1, V3, V4. V2 has a Tube Store Preferred Series 7025.
The plate dissipation for the V4, V6, and V8 is the pretty much the same same. Per the measurements I have taken, all three amps have about the same plate voltage, and bias procedures in their respective service manuals specify 30mA quiescent cathode current. 30mA of plate current comes out to about 60% dissipation, so this is a fairly conservative setup.
One difference that could explain why the V8 is not drastically more powerful is the screen supply setup. The V6 has a 350V screen supply, 22 ohm screen resistors, and PTC thermistors (for protection). The V8 has a 360V screen supply and 2.2kohm screen resistors. Although the V8 has a slightly higher screen supply, the larger screen resistors will limit the amount of power the tubes can make.
I have a 69 and 87 SVT. The V6 has a totally different tone, so which will sound better will depend upon you goal. @JimmyM will tell you about how well the SVT VR compares to vintage. He has a blueline running 6146s as well.
For same total plate dissipation numbers its possible to design different amps with different numbers of total output power.
Lets assume the total of plate dissipation of all present power tubes of an amplifier may provide a total of 100 Watt (thermal) disspiation.
If the amplifier shall power an electrical tool machine that sucks an rather average power over longish time cycles then I'd design the amplifier for 100 Watt output power at most, cause the electrical tool machine might demand 100% duty cycle over time.
To the contrary if the amplifier shall power an MI bass guitar cabinet I'd design the amplifier for no less than 200 Watt cause even for distorted sounds musicians rarely exceed 50% duty cycle. Likely I'd design for about 30% duty cycle which is a number that predicts a pretty good thermal robustness so the amplifier might even push out about 300 Watt just to meet save thermal limits in MI practice.
Actually it was even possible (and also valid) to design for 25% duty cycle just to design for an output power that equals about 400 Watt.
Finally it depends on the designers design goals (and his practical foresight about duty cycle numbers) how much of output power might be be savely achieved based on a given number of total plate dissipation.
Class AB amplifiers are current biased to suppress push/pull takeover distortion. Within the dynamic range of biasing the plate disspiation remains steady independent if the amplifier was still in idle mode or if the amplifer was already amplifying some signal which draws a couple of watts to the cabinet.
The number of bias current makes (almost always) no difference about the question asked of the amplifiers capibility of output power. If the amplifier was biased for 20% of output power then the amplifier would dissipate already about 20% of its output power at the tubes plate in idle mode.
It also means that the amplifier would disspiate just the same thermal losses (steady stade) in the range of idle mode towars 20% of rated output power in amplyfying mode.
The amount of bias current does NOT mean its nothing but thermal loss. If the amplifier has to amplify some signal then the bias current does brunch off (AC wise) to the cabinet thus the thermal loss at the tubes plate does not increase as long as the signal (to be amplified) does not demand for more of current than bias current.
edit, in practice amplifiers are biased for not bigger numbers than about 5% of maximum power so, I think its nothing but nitpicking to discuss bias losses which, of course, these have never been losses anyway.
Uhm, that's really hard stuff to translate understandable right into your language. Feel free to ask any question if you have a feel some information migt be lost into the language barrier.
Lets assume the total of plate dissipation of all present power tubes of an amplifier may provide a total of 100 Watt (thermal) disspiation.
If the amplifier shall power an electrical tool machine that sucks an rather average power over longish time cycles then I'd design the amplifier for 100 Watt output power at most, cause the electrical tool machine might demand 100% duty cycle over time.
To the contrary if the amplifier shall power an MI bass guitar cabinet I'd design the amplifier for no less than 200 Watt cause even for distorted sounds musicians rarely exceed 50% duty cycle. Likely I'd design for about 30% duty cycle which is a number that predicts a pretty good thermal robustness so the amplifier might even push out about 300 Watt just to meet save thermal limits in MI practice.
Actually it was even possible (and also valid) to design for 25% duty cycle just to design for an output power that equals about 400 Watt.
Finally it depends on the designers design goals (and his practical foresight about duty cycle numbers) how much of output power might be be savely achieved based on a given number of total plate dissipation.
Class AB amplifiers are current biased to suppress push/pull takeover distortion. Within the dynamic range of biasing the plate disspiation remains steady independent if the amplifier was still in idle mode or if the amplifer was already amplifying some signal which draws a couple of watts to the cabinet.
The number of bias current makes (almost always) no difference about the question asked of the amplifiers capibility of output power. If the amplifier was biased for 20% of output power then the amplifier would dissipate already about 20% of its output power at the tubes plate in idle mode.
It also means that the amplifier would disspiate just the same thermal losses (steady stade) in the range of idle mode towars 20% of rated output power in amplyfying mode.
The amount of bias current does NOT mean its nothing but thermal loss. If the amplifier has to amplify some signal then the bias current does brunch off (AC wise) to the cabinet thus the thermal loss at the tubes plate does not increase as long as the signal (to be amplified) does not demand for more of current than bias current.
edit, in practice amplifiers are biased for not bigger numbers than about 5% of maximum power so, I think its nothing but nitpicking to discuss bias losses which, of course, these have never been losses anyway.
Uhm, that's really hard stuff to translate understandable right into your language. Feel free to ask any question if you have a feel some information migt be lost into the language barrier.
Last edited:
