- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,518
- 19,954
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
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 Un-Official Sadowsky SA200 Thread...
- Thread starter jokerjkny
- Start date
FWIW, I have owned and gigged two NV610's over the years; the first w/o the tweeter, current with the tweeter. That cab is my favorite bass cab. But, I can actually get really close to what it does with my other Bergantino cabs, which are the AE212 and HD112. I mean, there are certainly differences; the NV610 being tighter on the low end. But, Jim does an outstanding job with all of his cab voicings. So, IME, yes there are differences, but the characters are more similar than different. YMMV.No worries, we probably just need to agree to agree.
This comment is a bit hard for me to really put in proper context.
What I was trying to convey was that from an engineering perspective it shouldn't be that difficult to at the very least be able to dial in a usable tone if the two components are designed with the other one in mind.I agree, but AFAIK products from different companies with full product lines are not generally designed with a priority towards compatibility with products from competing companies. In fact design intent may vary significantly from company to company, or even internally within a company from one product line to the next.
Another very important aspect is the match between designer intent and user goals. Just because something is well designed and perfectly hits the target does not mean everyone will love it. For example I mentioned that I can hardly stand to play through Ampeg 810Es, although the tone would certainly be usable and millions of people love it!
To be honest, I am still very curious to try one of your NV610 or NV412s. But I would not be surprised if I did not care for them and found it difficult to get what I consider a usable tone out of them--and for the record I own a 69 SVT and an 87 SVT. That does not say anything about the engineering you put into the cabs, they are both well respected and highly coveted.
Let's keep in mind the gestalt idea I mentioned involves some serious cork sniffing on my part. I am getting older and losing faith in my ability to hear (or perhaps) care about the subtle nuances that once seemed hyper-important and plain as day to me.
I greatly appreciate your grace and patience, and wish you a pleasant evening.
I know that TB players, such as @tombowlus, have raved about the combo of tube amps with the NV series. The first amp I used with my first NV610 was a TE Hexavalve; in fact, I ended up with two of them, the second coming from Tom. That combination was excellent. And, I have zero doubt that the SA200 on top of a big NV cab would be outstanding. I suspect an SVT would be equally or perhaps more impressive.
That said, my conclusion, at least re: the NV610, has been that the NV LOVES power. Plain and simple. So, for my purposes, a great tube preamp driving a high power SS power section into the NV is my preference. Maybe, that's not so sexy; but, that's what works for me. But, I will say that I do not strive for the big soupy P-ish thing some tube amps can deliver. My current pref and what I am using with the big cab is either the Demeter VTBP-201 or the preamp section of the Mesa TT800 into a QSC GX7. Shout out to the Shift Line Olympic MkIIIs, which also is pretty groovy. The GX7 might actually be a little over the top; but, judicious control gets every little bit of what the NV610 can deliver. Fat, but tight; and I realize those descriptors are highly subjective and perhaps not very accurately descriptive. But, that's what it does for me.
Of course, we all have (sometimes vastly) differing tonal goals; and, no combination is really a one size fits all. Just my $0.019 regarding the NV610.
Back on topic...this beast sounds immense through the NV115. Jonesing for a second one. (NV115, not SA200!)
I liked it better when this thread was dormant... 
the SA200 is (still) on my bucket list.
the SA200 is (still) on my bucket list.
Last time I checked, Ikebe-Gakki still had several used SA200s in stock for a reasonable price. Quick DIY mod to change AC input voltage setting from 100 to 115, and BOOM! 
Last time I checked, Ikebe-Gakki still had several used SA200s in stock for a reasonable price. Quick DIY mod to change AC input voltage setting from 100 to 115, and BOOM!
I bought a nice condition one on Ebay from a Japanese dealer and did just that. Question, though: can anyone upload a pic with dimensions/specs for the four screw-in rubber feet? The Japanese-spec [second generation] amps have four small 3M stick-on rubber feet and are lame. I'd like to use the US [first generation] feet
Is the case drilled for the feet. Keep in mind the first run of the amps had two toroidal transformers and the second had one toroidal and one regular transformer. So the feet placement used on the original design may not work as the transformer may cause an obstruction.
Also it's possible your amp originally had feet and they were lost, so someone added the stick-on feet. If there are screw holes for the feet, the most important thing IMHO is to figure out the screw size and thread pattern, and inspect the inside of the amp to see what sort of clearances are available. You don't want to cause damage by screwing a piece of metal too far into the chassis. The screws may already be in the chassis.
I did a Google search for "amplifier feet" and could not find an image that is exact. Something like this should be close enough if you can find an appropriate size.
The feet included with my amp taper down from about 1" and 1/8" and the bottom is rounded instead flat. Height is about 5/8th of inch. The stop for the screw is about in the middle. I believe the screw hole is about 3/16"
The feet for my amp are not solid, rather they have spokes more like this:
Mine have Skiffy Amsterdam molded into the material.
Yup!
Will do. Guess I'll have to measure, unless you can tell exactly what the proper screws would be?
No, I didn't see any in there :/
Do you have a photo of an actual foot?
Yup!
Will do. Guess I'll have to measure, unless you can tell exactly what the proper screws would be?
No, I didn't see any in there :/
Do you have a photo of an actual foot?
It's not hard to find images of amps with the feet on them. I wouldn't worry too much about getting exact replacements. Unless you live in Europe finding a source may be impossible...even if you live in Europe they may have been discontinued as it looks like Skiffy may have been absorbed into a larger company.
The amps were made by The Official Koch Amps website
I had a broken 1/4" speaker out on my one of my SA200s and contacted Koch to get the brand and P/N. They provided great support. Maybe they can provide the details you need.
My amps are rack mounted and I have a set of feet in a little baggy. No idea where the screws are and I have no way of determining the thread. Also sorry, but I do not own a camera or even a modern cell phone.
I created some edited/composite images that give a pretty decent representation.
This is about as good as I can do with Paint
.Good luck!
That's funny. I couldn't really find any in-focus, high quality photos of the rubber feet?
Fair enough.
I reached out to them, and did get at least one reply, but they've ghosted me since the middle of last week. Sigh. Thanks for your help, though!
Another question for you SA200 owners out there: does the DI out contain the tubey goodness which is sent to the speakers? I ask because I'm tempted to buy a Noble bass DI for recording, but if I'm going to bring my SA200 anyways, is the Noble kind of unnecessary?
I have not tried the DI, but I can tell you the signal path. The Pre DI is taken off the plate of V1A. The only control before this is the Input Pad.
The Post DI is taken off between the Effects Return and Master volume, so you get the entire preamp and all of the tone controls, but no mojo from the output tubes.
It has a ok DI.
You could make it to a good DI, swapping the TL072 with a BB OPA 2134.
@
Besides the transformer difference, they're the same, no?
Good to know. Thanks!
Unfortunately not really.
If you look around the MK1 goes for about double of the MK2, there is a reason to it.
I guess the Owners of the MK1 either just dont part with it, because it sounds so good, or/and they really know what they have.
The Toroidal of the SA200 MK1, was made by Amplimo, thats one of the best manufacturers for Toroidal OTP there is.
Menno Van der Veen, a genius tube amp designer, colaborated with Amplimo.
I dont know, if he was involved in the development of the TXO-200 OPT (SA200 OPT),
but I pretty sure, Van der Veen showed them the know how.
Amplimo is making Toroidals only, and the audio OPTs they make are for high end audio, on custom order only.
An E-I OTP to toroidal is quite a big difference. A toroidal has much better noise rejection, cleaner signal much less THD, much greater bandwidth and last but not least, much less weight.
Higher bandwidth, basically means a toroidal output has no distortion compared to a E-I.
Correctly stated, there is very little to no audible distortion An E-I has (very simplified), a bit of a low pass filter. The bandwidth is, most likely why Upright bassists really like the SA200. Nothing missing in the frequency spectrum, they can hear their instrument almost like there is no amp, given there is a good pickup mic combination.
Its much more difficult to build an amp, with a toroidal OPT, the design really has to be spot on. Also and especially a toroidal OTP needs to be really precise made, otherwise you re in trouble, when you fire up your new design the first time.
Thats why a toroidal OTP costs at least double of a E-I.
From a design perspective I would say, the SA200 MK1 was build with reaching the cleanest and best sound possible in mind and not thinking about costs. The circuit design of the power section tells the same story, its designed to have the cleanest and widest output possible. Unfortunately a little at the cost of the tubes, the 500V on the G2 screen is a problem for regular EL34s, but at the same time, it ensures clean output for days, well ... yes until you reach OTP saturation.
But if you use EL34B STR tubes its fine, because those are rated higher than the regular EL34 and sound great. You cant overdrive that amp, its not designed for that. It has the fat circuit yes, but thats not the tubes overdriving.
Saturation of the power tubes isnt possible either, it goes directly in to OPT core Saturation, which isnt so great for the power tubes. the cool thing is you can put in EL34, 6AC7, KT66, KT77, KT88, KT90, 6L6, 5881 and 6550 the screen voltage is a bit high for that one. but if you stay below the max output power and tont go into saturation they re ok. A compressor brick walling the transients helps.
In theory the KT120 works too, but then there is no more reserve amperage on the PT.
If you try that you got to measure the outlet voltage if its 110V or 115V, If it is more than 110, or if it is instable, I would not try that. and even with 110V the KT120 draws 10.2 Ampere which is 0.2 over the rating. Usually the rating is 20% less than what it actually can deliver. So if you try the KT120, be aware, its unlikely but possible that this fries your PT.
The toroidal OTP was most likely chosen, because it transmits from the overtones way up to the lowest fundamentals possible. The overtones give you that 3D realistic reproduction of the Instrument and the (? under tones ?) give a bit "weak Octaver" like sensation.
After I swapped the TL072 it was more of all, deeper lows, more 3D realistic, more dynamic ect.
I cant say much about the MK2, I didnt like the OTP being EI, looks to me like a cost - sound compromise.
I didnt bother trying to find one to test. I havent seen one from the inside either (bottom side) so I dont know what caps and other components they used this time around. I have no schematic of the MK2, so i cant tell if they changed the circuit design.
Also I dont know what the OTP and PT specs are.
The PT looks different too, it looks about 3/4 to an 1" smaller in diameter,
The ratings could be the same if the PT is higher though.
The MK1 PT is about is about 5-1/2" in diameter, and 3" in height.
You can post whats written on the label of the PT.
If you make some close ups from the bottom in-side,
I can have a look and see what caps are in there, then I could say more.
Better change both of them. One is the DI, the other one is before the PI of the power amp section if I recall it right.
Lemon =)
Supposedly the reason the amp is not in continuous production is because it is too expensive to make. Sadowksy claimed a production of Mk2s was built when changes in the exchange rate made conditions economically feasible. It makes sense that the transformer change was due to cost, but I also thought it might have had something to do with availability and something else called economy scale.
Economy of Scale:
Component manufacturers often have a minimum order for production runs. This is driven by the cost to retool a production line and the cost of materials which typically goes down if larger batches of raw materials and supplies can be ordered. The manufacturer must make enough of the component to turn a reasonable profit, or it's not worth their time. If more of the component is made, they can offer the component at a lower price.
AFAIK something like 100 Mk1s and 100Mk2s were made. In manufacturing circles I believe that is a very small production run, so the price of the transformers is going to be on the high side. AFAIK the Mk1 used custom transformers, although I would not be surprised if the Eden VT300A, which was also made by Koch shared transformers with the Sadowsky. If both of these amps used the same transformers it would have increased the size of the production and brought prices down.
My point is the original transformers were either not available, or could not be made at a profit given the number of transformers that were needed.
Eden
Sadowksy
Without an actual direct comparison you can't really say if the Mk2 performs different than the Mk1 in any significant way. For the record, I own two Mk1s and they do not sound identical. So in order to do a meaningful comparison between the Mk1 and Mk2 I believe you would need multiples of each.
Per Sadowsky the recommended tube is now KT88. Even the Shuguang EL34B used in the SA200 was apparently experiencing too high of a failure rate.
That's a Mk2. Here is an image with Mk1 added below it.
Notice that even the main circuit board is different. That does not mean the schematic has changed though.
