Vintage SVT vs SVT-CL?

[Jerrold Tiers]

Well, I only put in a post because i was willing to take the questions....I *had noticed* that it was a tough crowd.......


KingofAmps:

The original 500 were built as closely as we could to the originals, even to a lot of hand wiring methods. They were ungodly expensive to make, we were going back 15 years in construction techniques, but we felt we had to make "close to original" units because everyone knows about Crate....Ampeg isn't supposed to be about that...and so we had basically to prove we were serious.

I would not represent even those as "original" since we couldn't get every part the same. They do sound different. There was a fairly major discontinuity during the MTI years. If you really want a 1972 version, probably nothing will be that except a "real" one.

Frankly we are not claiming them to be same as the 1969 model. Circuits have changed slightly, etc.

But "drastic change in design", well....we went to more PC based construction, and have responded to various field issues. But "drastic"? Maybe you could elaborate......?

Specific point from an old thread I saw, they all have three transformers.....filament, power, output. There has never been any change to that, and nobody wants to change it now.

I will be mentioning the sound issue to the product manager and the guy who has done most of the specific SVT work.

cb56:
I am not a marketing type....and I have not been involved with the ampeg board. The Product manager is the guy who has been monitoring the threads there, but he does go on the road, so some things may have got missed. Our bad. I told him I would look after TB as much as possible, and he said he'd get on the Ampeg one more than he has been able to recently.
Can't argue with you, we started the board ourselves............

SVT200T if you mean the ultra-low, it is listed as 40Hz, but it is a shelving type if I recall correctly, and will boost below that too, limited by the amp low freq limit.
I will confirm that and post back.

As for power ratings, I guess I will have to dig back, or is this still from that "other" SVT thread? The one that DIDN'T get deleted?


Ampeg cabinets.....hmmmm....I'd sure like to argue with you...but let's leave it that "I might agree with you on some issues". There might be some action there.

 

[cb56]

Thanks for the response. I hope I didn't sound like I was coming down on YOU personally. Have you been to the Ampeg message board lately? It's a real mess. As far as the quality of the cabinets. You have a "budget" line. The B series. When I bought my 610hlf classic I wasn't expecting particle board instead of plywood. Bad move on someone's part.

 

[The 0x]

Can ampeg at least come out with a lighter transformer design? Those SVTs weigh more than my little brother.

 

[Arthur Poon]

This is good stuff-thanks for getting the SLM folks involved, cb56. Ampeg Insider: I called & e-mailed SLM numerous times in regards to my since sold SVT-CL(then SVT-2 Pro) lacking headroom. I talked with a T.W. in the service dept who was a bit more helpful but for the most part, I was ignored or given pretty obvious suggestions (i.e. "push in the -15 db switch")when I reported I was getting more distortion from my SVT's than I wanted at stage volume levels. I spent a mint on my stack and replacement tubes to no avail. I ended up selling the stuff off. IMHO SLM needs to be more involved their "paying customer's" concerns. I'm not ragging on you by any means. I still own some Ampeg gear that I'm very happy with, the BXT410HL cabs I own sound awesome- but they're also the heaviest 4-10 cabs I've ever owned. I curse Ampeg twice a weekend, but once my sound comes out, it's well worth the backache. I hope you can pass along our concerns to the appropriate people.

Thanks for your answers. A.P.

 

[KingOfAmps]

Originally posted by Ampeg Insider
Frankly we are not claiming them to be same as the 1969 model. Circuits have changed slightly, etc.

"When the Rolling Stones toured in the late sixties and early seventies, the world was exposed to a new technology-the Super Vacuum Tube or the SVT. Since then, bass players recognize the unmistakable Ampeg sound.....Today's updated reissue models offer the same soul-shaking tone." (Emphasis NOT in original)

This excerpt is from the 2001 catalog. I wish I could put my hands on the 1997 catalog because the excerpt from it is even better. In that year I decided to take the plunge and get that famous old tube-tone. So as you might imagine I was thrilled to read in the catalog that I could readily acquire that by purchasing a new model that were in stores everywhere (literally). Or would you not imagine that? You stated that you are not a marketing type. Maybe that has something to do with it but saying "Today's updated reissue models offer the same soul-shaking tone" is, to me, frankly saying they are the same. Perhaps you meant "specifically" or "strictly"?

Circuits have changed slightly, etc.

"The all-tube SVT-AV is the direct descendant of the original, but with new twists like an input gain and master volume, a 5-position bla, blah, blah..."(NOT a complete quote)

That's another from the 2001 book. To the marketing guy's credit this was included. At the time I did not recognize this as a red flag. Live and learn.

Well, I only put in a post because i was willing to take the questions....I *had noticed* that it was a tough crowd......

I don't think I'm part of the tough crowd but either way your willingness makes you OK in my book and I think it's great you're posting.

The original 500 were built as closely as we could to the originals, even to a lot of hand wiring methods. They were ungodly expensive to make, we were going back 15 years in construction techniques, but we felt we had to make "close to original" units because everyone knows about Crate....Ampeg isn't supposed to be about that...and so we had basically to prove we were serious.

Hearing this from an Ampeg Insider gives me some weird kind of relief for some reason.

If you really want a 1972 version, probably nothing will be that except a "real" one.

Just like the thread starter I found this to be true after owning the CL and the IIPro.

But "drastic change in design", well....we went to more PC based construction, and have responded to various field issues. But "drastic"? Maybe you could elaborate......?

There's all the previously mentioned stuff: new twists like an input gain and master volume, a 5-position mid frequency selector. Plus a channel is missing. And aren't there three fewer tubes? Wouldn't thing such as tubes, channels, and input gains add up to some kind of difference? I'm no amp engineer but I'm observant. So when I discovered that I could not get either the CL or IIPro (both purchased new from Authorized Dealers) to sound even close to the older ones I assumed those things had something to do with it. The sound is where I see/hear/feel the drastic change!

Specific point from an old thread I saw, they all have three transformers.....filament, power, output. There has never been any change to that, and nobody wants to change it now.

Could you post a pic (top-down view) of a CL that details this?

I will be mentioning the sound issue to the product manager and the guy who has done most of the specific SVT work.

It would not shock me to learn that (at the time of the redesign) that no one cared about the change in sound. But surely someone there noticed. Is the Original SVT sound not worth preserving past 1987?

Lastly, I hope this thread does not get shut down as SVT threads normally are. I hope I'm not perceived as hostile and I do not feel that you are.

 

[ihixulu]

Don't SVT threads get shut down becasue someone chimes in that an SVT isn't all that or that a certain resistor's value is 10k vs 1k....which leads to some folks deconstructing that person's integrity, sanity and lucidity and on and on. Basically, turns ugly quick.

Anyway... I think the reason for changing the SVT is there in insider's answer. The cost of producing the amp in its original form was labor intensive, parts were becoming scarce and untimately it wasn't worth bankrupting a company over.

Tone is subjective and changes over time, plenty of people are satisfied enough with the CL's tone to spring for it. Would those same people pay 30% more to get a tone more like the original? 50%? Who knows, but I bet there's a business plan out there that has looked at that question.

Musical gear is by and large a commodity item these days and the market for boutique amps is pretty small, especially if you want to maintain a hand built operation. Compare Aguilar and Ampeg, in price, quality and quantity sold.

 

[cb56]

Originally posted by Ampeg Insider


As for power ratings, I guess I will have to dig back, or is this still from that "other" SVT thread? The one that DIDN'T get deleted?

Well probably that SVT thread but I think for me anyway it all kind of started here.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=35548&highlight=ampeg+power

As far as this thread getting deleted, I think if we all keep a cool headabout it and don't start calling people crazy or stupid or assuming someone is accusing you of lying or being a smart@ss like me. We should be ok.

 

[Jerrold Tiers]

Power rating: the 1600 watts?

I think I might be partly responsible for the 1600W deal.....

The previous product manager was looking for power ratings due to some competitive "issues" with another company.

I dug up the Crown "single cycle 40Hz burst" power rating that they used to publish. When we tested our unit per the Crown procedure, that 1600W was what we got. It went over big with him, so it got in the catalog etc.

It basically measures what the power supply can hold up for a fairly credible transient duration.

It is really a transient power rating, not a peak, btw. (Peak would be 3200 at that point.)

You will actually get to use that power rating with the transients of normal bass playing, particularly if you string pop a lot.

If you do thrash punk you may be closer to the 1200 watts continuous....

So, is it inflated? I'd call it "edgy" but true, IF it isn't implied to be a continuous power rating.
It was originally footnoted in the specs as being a "single cycle 40Hz burst" power.

The 1200 watts is continuous as per website etc mentioned in the old thread. Basically the same power amp actually produces 1300+ continuous spec watts in another unit.

 

[KingOfAmps]

Originally posted by ihixulu
Anyway... I think the reason for changing the SVT is there in insider's answer. The cost of producing the amp in its original form was labor intensive, parts were becoming scarce and untimately it wasn't worth bankrupting a company over.

My understanding of the history in that time period is that SLM purchased Ampeg basically from bankruptcy. Maybe not a bona fide legal Chapter 11 or whatever but the previous owner had a company that was fizzling out. I think that is what Ampeg Insider is partially referring to when he said " There was a fairly major discontinuity during the MTI years." I take it to mean that MTI could not afford to build SVTs in some years. There was no where for SLM to take Ampeg but up. Basically, I'm always left with the impression (usually from Ampeg itself) that they built the 500 to say Hey, Ampeg's back! The SVT is back! The sound is back! But only the first 500. (sorry)

Tone is subjective and changes over time

In the 5 years I had my CL its tone never changed. Neither has the tone of my old SVT. If you mean that people's tastes change, yes I agree that happens. Mine haven't though.

plenty of people are satisfied enough with the CL's tone to spring for it.

I liked my CL. I still like the CL. I think it's a very good amplifier. It sounds nice. It is ungodly loud. I was satisfied with it. But I was disappointed that it did not and could not sound even close to the old ones and in the long run I had to have that tone. Simply, there is a wide chasm between the tone of the old and that of the new. But I felt a little duped by the claims. I know that is my fault. I was naive.

Would those same people pay 30% more to get a tone more like the original? 50%?

That very question is what led me to discover TB. Here I found a lot of good, solid info and met some very cool people. I credit TB with making my overall Ampeg experience pleasant. In the end I got the Ampeg tone I needed for hundreds less.

 

[ihixulu]

But only the first 500.

Exactly, they had to stop because at the given price point of an SVT the existing methods or design parameters made no economic sense. Not a judgement on the amp's viability, just economic reality.

If you mean that people's tastes change, yes I agree that happens. Mine haven't though.

What I meant to say and what I should have written, my bad.

Among musicians there are many whose tastes haven't changed over time. I'd wager there is a greater number for whom tastes have changed, over the years, which is why we see such a huge variety of modern designs on the market, even from Ampeg itself. To bank on people's tastes not changing is a dangerous business strategy.

... in the long run I had to have that tone....

Which is why you did the legwork to find a reputable seller, a competent tech and committed your $$$ to that end. Most people don't do it for whatever their reasons are. Certainly not enough people shelled out for SVT's (among other products Ampeg offered) to keep Ampeg solvent through various iterations.

I suppose, Ampeg could release a Special Edition True Blue SVT built to original specs and sell it at a viable price point. Just a wild guess but I imagine that head would cost around $3000. I'm basing it on the cost of Aguilar gear which AFAIK isn't the most expensive of the hand built tube machines out there. Again, wild WILD guess. Upshot is, at that price point there is a limited number of buyers, maybe not enough to keep the projecct going.

In the end I got the Ampeg tone I needed for hundreds less.

Are we talking about the used market or why SLM/Ampeg isn't producing original spec SVTs?

 

[Jerrold Tiers]

Well, there is some truth in everyones post....

Yes, Ampeg was all but dead when SLM bought the rights in the mid 80's. There was *some* historical data, but nothing like a full history of changes. It was essentially the name, a little stock of parts and units, and some files, as I recall.

Ampeg had been a sort of football for a while. Probably some of the previous "huge corporate owners" had tossed whatever they didn't want along the way. I don't know. It is surprising what companies toss and forget about. Even 15 years past might as well be the stone age in some companies.

I am digging into the SVT history thing now, but as it is a spare time thing I may not have info for a while.

I have so far unearthed some memos from the early 80s relating to such things as subs for the 12DW7 with related required mods, and the like. No doubt there will be more.


As far as subsequent changes? Much of it is what ihixulu said. Some of it may be from originally duplicating construction etc from the wrong era unit. Some is part availability (rocker switches for instance), some is requested tone changes. Some is added circuitry not in the original.

I think it might be interesting to see if the CL unit could be "deconstructed" back to the 70s....in tone if not look.
Its a tough one, when you move parts around you change tone, due to component interactions. You just can't help it.
I don't know if it could be done, and if it could, whether it would matter.

It's like the old "pre-CBS Fender" thing.......(sigh)

As far as tastes changing...new people come in, others change styles. Think about the various posts mentioning the "coloredness" of the "Ampeg tone" vs others. Those tend to reinforce the point.

Ill see about a pic of the chassis for you .......I said I knew it was a tough crowd....

 

[Jerrold Tiers]

Re SVT200T ultra-low

Checking it out reveals that the ultra-low starts about 100hz (3 db) and has about 10-12dB boost at 40Hz.


Old/new tone
"Maybe that has something to do with it but saying "Today's updated reissue models offer the same soul-shaking tone" is, to me, frankly saying they are the same. Perhaps you meant "specifically" or "strictly"?"

Apparently some folks thought it was close enough to say the same...mileage differs, "I" would not claim they are/were built the "same".
It's an opinion thing, and what you compare to, etc.

I think you have a point. So does McRelly's signature lines about recommendations and so forth....as with any amp, you try it, you like it or you don't.

"It would not shock me to learn that (at the time of the redesign) that no one cared about the change in sound. But surely someone there noticed. Is the Original SVT sound not worth preserving past 1987?"

As I recall from 15 years ago, the issue was "OK, we made them *just like* the old ones...but now the unit needs to be updated for new music styles".

So the whole point was to add-to or extend the capabilities while preserving the old *as much as possible*. Those are flexible terms....

The degree to which this was achieved and the degree to which it was even a good idea to try it may be debated......I think I have your answer....!

 

[JayAmel]

I just want to witness that I also had a 70's SVT (w/matching cab). I bought it used in early 1984 and sold it in late 1986, since it took too much room in the small flat I had at this time.

Early last year, I was borrowed an SVT-CL w/SVT-810E cab, and I must admit they almost have nothing in common. I planned for buying the SVT-CL, but I brought it back to the dealer after 2 days.

As some people said before me, what makes a problem is that SLM try to make one believe the CL is (almost) the same amp as the legendary, but sorry I did not recognize the depth and warmth of the old SVT's.

I'd highly recommend that SLM _really_ reissue this mythic amp... if it's possible, of course.

 

[KingOfAmps]

Originally posted by Jean Lançon
...since it took too much room in the small flat I had at this time.

With the right cushions and some velcro, SVT cabs can double as a love seat.

As some people said before me, what makes a problem is that SLM try to make one believe the CL is (almost) the same amp as the legendary, but sorry I did not recognize the depth and warmth of the old SVT's.

Depth and warmth. I could not think of those two perfect words yesterday to save my life. Depth and warmth. Exactly!

 

[KingOfAmps]

Originally posted by ihixulu
Exactly, they had to stop because at the given price point of an SVT the existing methods or design parameters made no economic sense. Not a judgement on the amp's viability, just economic reality.

I understand and I agree. But what I don't get is that half of the time the spiel is 'No, of course there different! It'd cost $3000 or $4000 to make 'em like that again. The other half it's 'Nothing's really changed. Maybe certain parts are sourced from different vendors but very little has changed'.

I'm just some guy in Nashville playing bass. But I know there's a huge tonal difference. I believe there are diffences in the amps. And I think that those differences are why they sound different.

I suppose, Ampeg could release a Special Edition True Blue SVT built to original specs and sell it at a viable price point.

Well, between me and the Frenchman that makes two Pre-Orders.

Are we talking about the used market or why SLM/Ampeg isn't producing original spec SVTs?

Good point.

 

[JayAmel]

Originally posted by KingOfAmps
With the right cushions and some velcro, SVT cabs can double as a love seat.

Unfortunately, at this time I was a single

Depth and warmth. I could not think of those two perfect words yesterday to save my life. Depth and warmth. Exactly!

Of course, I do not mean the SVT-CL is a bad amp. It's even a very good one. But it didn't sound like what I was expecting. Felt like the SVT had migrated from "unique" to "ordinary". And I was not ready to spend approx 4.000,- EUR for an ordinary amp. But I know some people love it, though.

Cheers
JL

 

[BillyB_from_LZ]

I don't know if I can accept the thought that it would cost too much to build an SVT the way that they used to. Perhaps there are factors that aren't obvious to me.

I owned a '73, it was built with printed circuit boards, one for the preamp mounted behind the controls, one for the drivers and power amp located on the bottom of the cabinet with a wiring harness between the two of them.

I haven't seen the insides of a CL but I'm sure that it has at least two circuit boards and I know that the power tubes are located on a chassis in the bottom of the cabinet.

Maybe its in the tube compliment and construction of the output transformer...

 

[JayAmel]

There's a factor I can imagine : some laws that may bind (or forbid) industry to use any kind of material or component, etc. I believe there are such laws, but I can't tell if they apply to SVT models.

Apart from this point, I believe SLM should realize their interest to _really_ reissue the "genuine" SVT. There are less and less units on the second hand market, and they are more and more expensive. Easy to guess that within a few years, their price on the used market will increase much more again.

SLM have a chance to reissue this unique amp, no matter the price : obviously buyers will be there.

Cheers,
JL

 

[ihixulu]

Jean,

I don't think the question is wether the buyers are there or not. The question is how many and wether that number will be sufficient to keep the project economically viable.

Another option they may want to consider is to licence the original schematics and name to a small shop that will hand build them. Of course the problem there is the initial infusion of capital and finding someone willing to take the risk.

 

[KingOfAmps]

Originally posted by ihixulu
I don't think the question is wether the buyers are there or not. The question is how many and wether that number will be sufficient to keep the project economically viable.

Another option they may want to consider is to licence the original schematics and name to a small shop that will hand build them. Of course the problem there is the initial infusion of capital and finding someone willing to take the risk.

When one reads various histories of Ampeg and gets to the part aout SLM building 500 SVTs like the originals, it reads a lot like what you suggest. In a way Ampeg had a "small shop" (within the larger whole) with a handful of folks assigned to focus on the production of just those 500 SVTs. Dubbed the "Skunkworks", the name stuck also as an unofficial nickname to those particular 500 amps.

How 'bout building 100/year. Price 'em higher than the boutiques. Keep the "Classic" as an econo-model. Don't build a SVY-VIPro and a VIIPro (I know that's coming!). Streamline to make some room. I always hear dealers stating that the line is bloated. I heard a rumor that they're thinking of dropping the "Pro-Series" cabs. That's a good idea.

Funny how they used an opposite philosophy with the 810 cab (as opposed to the SVT head). That cab has been around since '69 and someone at Ampeg said, "Hey, let's build a version that looks the same but costs an extra $1,000. Everybody will love it cuz we'll call it a PRO810".

I don't own an amp company but if I did and I reached a point where things needed to be shaken up a little and the company was Ampeg I'd drop some models and some of the redundant cabs and start building a limited number of original SVTs and yes this sentence is too long.

Ampeg Insider: If this happens be sure to send me and the Frenchman one of those W2s or W4s or whatever so we can get paid too!