Why isn't the Ampeg 8X10 ported?

[Wesley R]

The era that the SVT was introduced, was a time when bass players (and the rest of the music world) started to understand or think that speakers were the weakest link in the bass amplifications chain.
When first introduced, wasn't the SVT to be sold with both cabs only and not one? That is a bunch of cone area.
It was on my 13th birthday that I played through an SVT. My birthday party was at a music store. As a bunch of whelps, we marveled at the sealed in pairs concept and how the sound was felt as wellas heard.
In college I met a doofus who tried to port his SVT cab, in was a failed experiment and he should have reprimanded somehow.

Best of Luck,
Wesley R.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

If you want a ported Ampeg 2X8, get the little combo amp, the Portabass 228. I have one and love it!. It is super light (31 lbs.) and it is puts out some serious volume!

 

[billfitzmaurice]

Isnt the sealed design inferior to a ported tuned design strictly in terms of capability of accurate "sound spectrum" reproduction? I mean isnt a ported box better suited for a wider range of 20 - 20kHz reproduction if thats what you are trying to accomplish?

No. There are some drivers that are flatter in sealed alignments, some flatter in vented. and some that are pretty much the same in either. There's also the matter of whether flatter response is necessarily better. In the hi-fi realm that's pretty much a given, but not so in pro-sound. Most bass players would find the sound of a truly flat system to sound rather sterile, while guitar players would find flat response unusable.

 

[seamonkey]

Thanks gawd stereo speakers are flat. They can reproduce any sound, even the classic old recordings. And if the sound going in is honky, the sound coming out is honky.

 

[metron]

No. There are some drivers that are flatter in sealed alignments, some flatter in vented. and some that are pretty much the same in either. There's also the matter of whether flatter response is necessarily better. In the hi-fi realm that's pretty much a given, but not so in pro-sound. Most bass players would find the sound of a truly flat system to sound rather sterile, while guitar players would find flat response unusable.

Interesting thanks! I guess I had a misconception about sealed vs vented in that respect. At the end of the day I like all kinds of coloration in my sound. A 400w tube amp into a sealed 610 does the trick.

 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

That may be why people blow speakers when they use the SVT but only one of those vintage cabs. I wonder what would happen if you changed out the speakers with the modern versions...

I'm tired of this myth and it's too bad that Fliptops has lent it creedence. The original SVT cab was NOT 240 watts regardless of what the literature and catalogs may say. The low power rating was a marketing ploy to encourage the sale of TWO cabs. Most people who could afford the head and one cab could also swing another cab. According to the people who made the speakers that went in them, each SVT 10" was rated individually for 160 watts! If you changed the old speakers with new ones, you'd have less low end, lower sensitivity and less articulation.

 

[Chris Breese]

I'm tired of this myth and it's too bad that Fliptops has lent it creedence.

Whoa! Shows how much I know about the older 8x10! I was just going by what Fliptops said on their site!

If you changed the old speakers with new ones, you'd have less low end, lower sensitivity and less articulation.

Have you performed the switch? Just curious.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

According to the people who made the speakers that went in them, each SVT 10" was rated individually for 160 watts!

At that time the most powerful drivers available were Altecs and JBLs, and they were only rated at 75 watts. Jensens, CTS, Utahs and Celestions for the most part were 25 to 50 watts.

 

[KingOfAmps]

As far as trying out vintage Ampeg 8X10 cabs - I wouldn't even debate that they sound better than a new one. I don't know if they do, but if anybody who has experience with both thinks the vintage ones are better quality, I wouldn't doubt them.

I still believe that if I buy a new 8X10e, which again, is an easy trip to my local GC, I'm going to get a nice cabinet.

I feel like someone just painted on my back a bullseye the size of an 18" JBL and pushed me out into the shooting gallery.

Hey Skel! I've had both. I like the older ones better. They sound less dark and dumpy to me. That's all very subjective of course and the reason you should try both if at all possible. And that's not to say that the newer ones are dark. Or dumpy. They just aren't as lively. There's more vague subjectivity for you, whaddayagonnado?

Construction-wise there's something about real wood throughout that just suits me better and though I can't prove it with specs. and graphs I believe that it contributes to the tonal difference. Kind of like the boutiquey guitard cab builders who offer options like mahogany, pine, ash, etc. and say that there are sound differences. Is it so hard to believe that 100% real ply will sound different than "simulated"?

That being said I agree that if you buy a new one you still will be getting a nice cab. (Hi J.T. )

Lastly, I'm gonna quietly slip outta this thread and back to the safety of the other forum where it's much safer. This here makes politics, taxes, Nazis, creationism look downright tame...

 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

At that time the most powerful drivers available were Altecs and JBLs, and they were only rated at 75 watts. Jensens, CTS, Utahs and Celestions for the most part were 25 to 50 watts.

Take it up with Eminence. According to them, their SVT 10" was a rated for 160 watts and it was pretty much an identical copy of CTS's previous model, as Eminence was started by the CTS designer who made it.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

Take it up with Eminence. According to them, their SVT 10" was a rated for 160 watts and it was pretty much an identical copy of CTS's previous model, as Eminence was started by the CTS designer who made it.

Easy enough, their head designer is a good friend.

 

[Skel]

I feel like someone just painted on my back a bullseye the size of an 18" JBL and pushed me out into the shooting gallery.

Hey Skel! I've had both. I like the older ones better. They sound less dark and dumpy to me. That's all very subjective of course and the reason you should try both if at all possible. And that's not to say that the newer ones are dark. Or dumpy. They just aren't as lively. There's more vague subjectivity for you, whaddayagonnado?

Construction-wise there's something about real wood throughout that just suits me better and though I can't prove it with specs. and graphs I believe that it contributes to the tonal difference. Kind of like the boutiquey guitard cab builders who offer options like mahogany, pine, ash, etc. and say that there are sound differences. Is it so hard to believe that 100% real ply will sound different than "simulated".

That being said I agree that if you buy a new one you still will be getting a nice cab. (Hi J.T. )

Lastly, I'm gonna quietly slip outta this thread and back to the safety of the other forum where it's much safer. This here makes politics, taxes, Nazis, creationism look downright tame...

Ha ha! Yes, you can get your head ripped off out here..I have a few times and it hurts until you get used to it. I'll see if I can find any older 8x10s but I think they it will be very hard to find one that's in decent condition. I would think that all the pros listed on Ampeg's website that use an 8x10 are using a pretty new one. It would be nice to hear something like "The old ones sound better, but both of them sound good". I've heard so much about the Berg NV610 that I'm convinced it must be a fantastic sounding cabinet, but that doesn't mean the Ampegs and some of the other companies that make an 8x10 don't sound good.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

Take it up with Eminence. According to them, their SVT 10" was a rated for 160 watts and it was pretty much an identical copy of CTS's previous model, as Eminence was started by the CTS designer who made it.

The chief engineer at Eminence told me today that they don't even have specifications on file for the original CTS drivers. They did not copy the original, they designed it from scratch as an OEM for Ampeg.

 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

...and what exactly did he say about THEIR speaker's rating?

Eminence was started by CTS's former head designer and Ampeg was one of their first OEM customers, so it follows that their speaker will be very similar to its predecessor.

http://www.eminence.com/resources.asp

 

[Jerrold Tiers]

Hah, the anti-posting timeout ate my first reply, but I had saved it this time!.....

The info per Bill Fitzmaurice agrees with what I know about it also.

SLM had a strong incentive to get a speaker "identical to" the original, but it could not be done. When SLM re-started Ampeg after MTI, the plan was to return to original as much as possible, so as to avoid the "you rats cheaped it out even more" syndrome (as if anyone would or will believe that cheaping out wasn't the plan....).

But, the speaker just couldn't be re-created, apparently. I don't recall the specific issues, but I think it related to magnets, and/or cones etc.

Companies like Eminence make a number of their own parts, but not everything. Cones and magnets and dustcaps, surrounds, etc, are typically purchased from suppliers.

Magnet makers and cone makers don't still make every magnet or cone ever made. Cones, magnets, dust caps, even voice coils, have tooling, consisting of molds, formers, etc. Often not just one, but a dozen or more identical ones for production. When the tooling is worn, damaged, or cleared out by the beancounters, after that you are SOL for getting more, unless you pay a big tooling cost.

And, even the materials may not be available, the company may not have the drawings for the parts, etc, etc. The company may have closed, or dropped that line of business.

IIRC, it was that sort of deal, but I don't know exactly what speaker parts were the big issues. I also do not recall if the Eminence founder was still in the business then.

The Eminence ratings pretty much go according to voice coil diameter, particularly with the older speakers. Eminence ratings tend to be conservative, so you need to know if you are dealing with a "published" rating, or a rating of the "confidentially, that's a 160W speaker" type....

The "standard" current 810 speaker has a 2" VC, and a rating of 150W.

The 1.5" VC speakers are rated lower.

So depending on the VC size, which I don't recall offhand, the published rating could have been 100W, or even lower, for the individual speakers in the old 810.

Naturally, that says nothing about the "Xmax limited power rating", which is lower, depending on frequency and cabinet. With the flat back speakers in the original or later 810s, you CAN slam the coils on the backplate if you over-power the speakers. Sounds like a .22 pistol.

Going by the electrical ratings, the 810 would be rated total of 150 x 8, or 1200W, but Xmax limits that to much less. With 1200W you WILL bang the coils on the backplate if you boost low end.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

The "standard" current 810 speaker has a 2" VC, and a rating of 150W.
The 1.5" VC speakers are rated lower.
So depending on the VC size, which I don't recall offhand, the published rating could have been 100W, or even lower, for the individual speakers in the old 810. Naturally, that says nothing about the "Xmax limited power rating", which is lower, depending on frequency and cabinet. With the flat back speakers in the original or later 810s, you CAN slam the coils on the backplate if you over-power the speakers. Sounds like a .22 pistol. Going by the electrical ratings, the 810 would be rated total of 150 x 8, or 1200W, but Xmax limits that to much less. With 1200W you WILL bang the coils on the backplate if you boost low end.

That very much jibes with my memory of the drivers I was using in that era. The 12" Jensens and CTS used by Fender in the Bassman were only 50 watters, and had a very limited xmax, so even a pair of twelves driven by a 50 watt Bassman would fart out on the E at low volume. I toasted more than a few before switching to JBLs and Altecs. A pair of JBL D120s had enough xmax to handle the full output of a Bassman head, but they were only rated at 75 watts, as were my favorites, the Altec 418 and 421. But compared to the drivers I'm using today, well, there's no comparison.

 

[BillyB_from_LZ]

...But compared to the drivers I'm using today, well, there's no comparison.

Bill, does that mean that today's drivers are better, worse or just really different?

 

[seamonkey]

Weren't early Ampeg 8x10 Alnico speakers?
Which I read would loose magnetism if over-heated? I heard it was common to send alnico speaker out to be remagnetized.

Or maybe it was just one of those things to get you to spend money on maintenance.

 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Weren't early Ampeg 8x10 Alnico speakers?
Which I read would loose magnetism if over-heated? I heard it was common to send alnico speaker out to be remagnetized.

Or maybe it was just one of those things to get you to spend money on maintenance.

Look everybody, spe... I mean Ji... I mean seamonkey is trolling again!

Alnico is an extremely strong magnetic alloy of aluminum, nickel, and cobalt unlike the neodymium which spe... I mean Ji... I mean seamonkey is purposefully trying to confuse with it, is no more suspectible to heat than ceramic speaker magnets. It is not in widespread use because cobalt is hard to get and ceramic is cheaper. But ounce for ounce, alnico has a magnetic field strength far larger than ceramic.

BTW, I notice that billfitzmaurice conveniently did NOT provide any ratings for the original Eminence made SVT 10" and has ignored my further clarification of a request for them.

Also, even if the original SVT speakers do prove to be "just" 100 watts each, that still shoots down the 240 watt cabinet rating. (Along with the nearly four decades of players, myself included, running an SVT full tilt into a SINGLE cabinet regularly with nary a speaker failure, but hey, let's ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and just call the old SVT cab a 240 watter anyway )

 

[billfitzmaurice]

Bill, does that mean that today's drivers are better, worse or just really different?

They are better. No comparison, really.

Which I read would loose magnetism if over-heated? I heard it was common to send alnico speaker out to be remagnetized.

Alnico can de-gauss over time, they can be re-gaussed.

BTW, I notice that billfitzmaurice conveniently did NOT provide any ratings for the original Eminence made SVT 10" and has ignored my further clarification of a request for them.

Eminence informed me that since the current OEM driver is still in production that its T/S specs are proprietary to Ampeg and can only be disclosed by them. They did provide me with T/S specs for a virtually identical driver, as a courtesy, and as a courtesy to both Eminence and Ampeg I will not reveal them. But I can assure that it's not a high powered driver. If you want more information ask Ampeg.

It's very unlikely that the original CTS drivers were rated any higher than 40 watts. When the original SVT came out in 1969 150 watt drivers simply didn't exist; since the average amp was only 50 watts there was no reason for them to. That's why they used eight of them, and why they recommended that two cabinets be used for full output.

The original CTS drivers were dropped by Ampeg in favor of Eminence copies in the early '70s, but those were phased out in 1980 for a higher power model. Eminence does not have any specs available on either its 1970s SVT driver or the CTS that it copied.