stigger:

that's not a dumb question at all...originally, I purchased my 1967 Silverface Fender Bassman 50 for bass playin' (back in the 80s)...but at loud volume levels (like 8-10), the Bassman 50 produces crappy-distorted bass tones. In other words, the Bassman kind of sucked for loud clear bass playing...

but, I began using the Bassman as a guitar amp and found that it functioned superbly! It is an awesome loud, clear, and warm guitar amp...and still quite affordable for a vintage amp.

For bass playing nowadays, I use a Gallien-Krueger solid state amp...nice and loud and clear.

-dp

if only i could edit my spelling error in the title, i'd stop crying

Our bassist uses a 50w bassman for bass. He uses a Ampeg 4x10 cabinet though. Without that cab it doesn't sound as good. If I remember correctly Ferenc was quite surprised to see him using a blackface bassman. Maybe he was surprised at the cab, but I don't remember 100%.

<u>jake</u>, might well be possible. I just never saw it, and would expect a 'normal ' (original speaker) set up simply not loud enough.

I 've said it before, and I'll say it again, speakers do as much or more for the volume than the 50 or 100 watts of the amp - I've seen efficiency of guitar speakersvary from 92 to 104 dB , while the differnce between 50 and 100 watts typically is 3 dB. In theory a 50w through a 102dB speaker shoudl make a helluva lot more noise than a 100w through a 92dB speaker.

more importantly, it's jcommon experience I guess that when buying new speakers, you tend to set your amp at different levels. our bassplayer went from 6 to 4 when geting a new speaker, with to JBL d140F's i have my bassman at 7, and it's stll not as loud as when I put it on 5 with the 2x12 Jensen neo cab. So yeah.

I must say, I bet that set-up sounds absolutly killer! I like the ampeg speakers more than their amps.

found his btw, which has some explanation. http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/001020_watts_dbs.php

<u>stigger.</u>

you can combine all sorts of stuff, as long as you keep an eye on wattage (be sure to have headroom there, say 80 watts at least on a 50watts amp) and impedance (4 ohms on a SF bassman)

these a rough figures, there's way more to say about it.

more important is what kind of sound your after. again, speakers can make all the diffenerce. that goes for speakers as well as amps. I love the bassman for its simplcity, good basic sound and cheapness, but something else might well be the thing for you. speakers, same thing. if you have a cab, feel free to ask whether it 'll match. if your gonna buy a new one, the best thing you can do is say what kind of sound your after and than ask back here again - I 'm sure the group can give darn good advice, as soon as you can tell us what your after.

good luck!
WR

Rules to live by #314:
"When in Italy, if the menu says something's grilled, don't assume it is."

https://www.facebook.com/The-Malbehavers-286429584796173/

Guys,

Ask an amp guru, and you'll get your ears talked off!

What WR says about decibels is correct, particularly in regards to how loud an amp/speaker combination can get. This harkens to "speaker efficiency" more than anything else, but remember, you're after The Tone, not volume. You can always get more volume from raw power, if you need it drive your great-sounding speakers.

Now, about power, or more precisely, about headroom.> ....

(be sure to have headroom there, say 80 watts at least on a 50watts amp)

Nope. Your final wattage figure, as advertised, is your headroom, pure and simple. Now, we can argue about what defines headroom, and all kinds of other esoterica, but the bottom line is, you only need 1 to 3 watts to make your ears bleed.... on a sustained note. That's important to remember. The rest of the power that an amp can develop is the headroom, over and above what you normally drive an amp to, in order to get a roomful of sound.

The formula of "doubling the power = 3dB increase" is correct. 50 watts of power gives 1/2 the total sound output of 100 watts, given all other things being equal (same speakers, etc.). So why do we worry about how much power an amp has, if we need only 1 to 3 watts? Hey, I didn't say we need only 3 watts, I said that that's all it takes to make a continuous sound. The rest of that power can be, and almost always is, taken up by the initial attack of the signal. That's the point in the sound where we transit from nothing to full on, and we need, effectively, infinite power in order to make that happen. Since we don't have infinite power available, we settle for some lower number. Usually we settle for something that compromises availability, cost, efficiency, heat transfer, etc. (Lots more to consider, but you get the idea.)

This should put to rest the issue of raw power. Wannes has it right, it's more important to have better speakers, but there, I say that you should consider the tone over all else. Well, the speakers must be rated to handle the power you intend to deliver to them, but that's a given.

One more thing. The output transformer (OT) of the early BF Bandmaster and the Bassman was the same, the channels had no effect on that. For the record, that would be Fender Part No. 125A13A, as found on both the 6G6 and the 6G7 (Bassman and Bandmaster, repectively). As it happens, I do have all the schematics on file.

The differences between the Bandmaster/Normal and the Bassman/Normal channels were in the tone stack, and the cathode biasing on the second stage. FWIW, if you want to change the pre-amp circuitry of a Bandmaster to that of a Bassman, or vice-versa, it's not hard at all. Takes maybe a half dozen parts, 15 to 20 minutes with a soldering iron, and you're done. However, I don't recommend doing this to a vintage piece, for obvious reasons. Newer amps, such as SF, are fair game, though, and they can be made to sound exactly like their earlier-built brethren.

OK, fun time is up. Any questions, post 'em!

unlunf

MY RIGHT HAND IS FASTER THAN YOURS!
(copyright 2003, Bruce Welch)

Jake, did you have raw meat for breakfast?

The Hicadoolas

Oh no! it's Darth Vader of the forum!

Get over it Jake. You're jealous that this guy had better internetting skillz than you did.

Anonymous wrote:

RIGHT AFTER THE FLO RIDA SONG AT THE END CREDITS THERE IS A SHORT INSTRUMENTAL WHICH DEFINITELY HAS GOT THE "SOUND" WE LOVE... IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD BE IN A TARANTINO FLICK... ANYWAY I'VE SEARCHED HIGH AND LOW AND NEAR AS I CAN TELL IT'S TOTALLY UNCREDITED.... ANY HELP OR GUIDANCE WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED! THANKS!

Poetry.

IMO.

Last edited: Aug 03, 2013 09:26:57

Yeah, I miss Unlunf as well. Al, as he was known when we met in person a couple times.