• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Thunderbird Club

Great story!
But when did that standard come into being?
I don’t really know when they harmonized the procedures but these tests have been around since the 30s. With VTs, they are incredibly rugged when cold but become mechanically brittle when at operating temp. Not surprising that the military was involved from day one...
 
Last edited:
I always had a positive impression of Traynor, too, but a lot of folk thought anything that wasn't a Big Name (Fender, Marshall, Ampeg, VOX) was somehow "less than". I didn't just color outside the lines, I walked off the map a lot as well.
Hence my love of the THUNDERBIRD.
They were good quality solid reliable amps. Their ss stuff was commonly seen in paid rehearsal spots...perception can be strange..
 
Thunderbird goes modular again. Used a sampled kick and perc but everything else is my Gibson T Bird played into two eurorack granular samplers and ‘performed’ live in one (very long) take. Recorded 4 minutes of it if anyone is interested.


After hearing that, I’m going down a Hawkwind rabbit hole. That is very cool.
 
This sounded great.

385A19B1-05ED-4763-9F10-253849EEF732.jpeg
 
Really? I have always had a positive impression of Traynor. Along the lines of - if you can't afford a Marshall/Fender, get a Traynor, they are almost as good. And now with what I know, I would likely take the Traynor first. Along with a THUNDERBIRD
When I was interested in the Traynor Bass amp, it was bigger and badder than anything else available(in my area)that was 'affordable' and[sorta]portable. It's a loooong time ago but IIRC I was looking at a 200W head and 412(?)cab-I think. I did later-mid 70s-buy a blue line SVT/810* rig('cos that's what all the "cool" bands had). It was OK, but for the money,:meh:.<ETA>IF I'da been smarter :roflmao:, I'da used my good ole 200w/2x15 Kasino[see pic] and saved the $ I spent on the SVT rig. "Too soon old, too late smart(er)"'
0212191234-00.jpg

*stupidly heavy
 
Last edited:
:rollno:
but i wonder which of the cabs weighs more..
The folded horn, for sure. I had an Acoustic 408 cabinet that was physically bigger than a 'fridge and bigger than a 361 cabinet. It had four 15s but was about half a ton lighter than the 361. I sometimes wonder why I didn't keep that stack, with a 320 head. Then I fire up the 360 and remember why it stuck around instead.
 
Just read the ad. He spent 40 years looking for one. Now he has had it for a year and it’s for sale?
Buyers remorse, I guess. Who knows. I would rather have a vintage Thunderbird, but I still would love to play it to find out what it does. Who knows, my mind can change. It is still out of my current disposable income range.
 
Last edited:
The Peavey Heritage VTX 130 is ~95 pounds. Puts a Twin reverb to shame. And only the power section is tubes!
It makes sense an SVT head would weigh that- 300 watts plus all tube pre. Some serious iron and copper in there.
Neck dive on these is a THUNDERBIRD of a different color.
It is back dive. Power section in the bottom of the speaker cabinet with WHEELS! Problem solved. Power section in the head unit is a dumb idea. Like putting the upper strap button in the wrong place on a Thunderbird.
 
It is back dive. Power section in the bottom of the speaker cabinet with WHEELS! Problem solved. Power section in the head unit is a dumb idea. Like putting the upper strap button in the wrong place on a Thunderbird.
as intuitive as that sounds, don't think a tube power amp would function reliably for an extended period of time sealed up in that folded horn the way ACC implemented their ss power stage......not to say it wouldn't be a worthy experiment....always wondered about the mechanical coupling effects of a powerful driver in that type of enclosure in proximity to the tube stage that drives it and the inherent interaction of that mechanical feedback mechanism....one that to this day modeling guitar amplifier algorithm gurus have trouble characterizing...
 
Last edited:
The early tube amps were obviously great, but when I started buying gear in the late 70’s the Traynor stuff was solid state. My perception was that a Peavey was a better choice.
I had a YVM-4 PA with the matching 6x8 tower cabs. Granted it was indestructible, but it didn’t sound great.
Then again my buddy had a Monoblock and 215 in the 80’s and that thing was a beast!
Woulda, coulda, shoulda bought a bunch of Traynor tube amps and a 60’s Thunderbird in the 80’s...

It's all timing. Solid State stuff started coming in when I started playing bass (late 60's) and my first rig was a DIY Heathkit SS 'combo' amp with 2x15's that my dad & I assembled. I'm certain it sounded like crap. My 2nd amp was a used Acoustic SS amp, and it wasn't until I bought a new Fender combo tube amp in '75? (shortly thereafter stollen) that I even had a tube amp. It didn't matter because back then I had no idea of what a bass was supposed to sound like. If it was loud - it was good. :laugh:

At least I had my THUNDERBIRD!
 
Last edited:
Great story!
But when did that standard come into being?
Drop testing standards have been around for a good long time. I was designing drop test stands to ASTM specifications for packaging claims back in the early 1980's and they had been around long before that,

Remember this old commercial...

To make the claim that the tube wouldn't break when dropped it had to be successfully drop tested from the height of a typical 3 story home (three flights of stairs was considered the worst reasonable case for residential use) with zero leakage. Repeatability was key since nearly every product claim runs the risk of being legally challenged by competitors. We used high speed cameras, accelerometers, load cells and moisture sensors. The landing pad was even machined to a specific thickness, flatness and surface roughness.

If Gibson had utilized a similar design and testing principle (maybe falling from waist high) wth regards to the THUNDERBIRD headstock we might actually be able to find an undamaged one from the 1960's. Although I'm not aware of any official impact claims made by any of their competitors either.
 
The Peavey Heritage VTX 130 is ~95 pounds. Puts a Twin reverb to shame. And only the power section is tubes!
It makes sense an SVT head would weigh that- 300 watts plus all tube pre. Some serious iron and copper in there.
Neck dive on these is a THUNDERBIRD of a different color.
But all those tubes sure make a Thunderbird sound pretty.
 
The early tube amps were obviously great, but when I started buying gear in the late 70’s the Traynor stuff was solid state. My perception was that a Peavey was a better choice.
This was my perception in the late 70s as well. Used a Traynor some and had not problems. Ended up buying a Peavey MkIV, I believe it was. Great head. Very versatile and warm for a SS head. Made my '64 Thunderbird sound awfully good back then.
 
I would rather have a vintage Thunderbird, but I still would love to play it to find out what it does. Who knows, my mind can change. It is still out of my current disposable income range.
They do sound magically different and feel better than any other iteration I've played. (The VP does do in that direction, but doesn't have that massive sound.) If you're ever in the Louisville area you're more than welcome to give my old Tbird and Embassy a whirl. There's something very special about the sound of my old Thunderbird that the other just don't have. The looks have been copied, but not the sound. Maybe I got a good one.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts