If I used a RM4/Carvin Poweramp instead of a RM100 Head

[jhideout]

Do you think the sound quality would decrease? Would one need to buy a better amp like a vht to do the RM4/modules justice?

 

[crankyrayhanky]

I say it's a big decrease...but I know someone else on this board who will chime in and say otherwise

Give me an all tube path 7 days a week

 

[SacredGroove]

You can't go wrong with a VHT, but it's not totally necessary. I'm not familiar with Carvin power amps. I am familiar with ADA, Rocktron, VHT, and Mesa power amps, and whether they're SS or tube, the results are comparable with a slight difference in tone.

If you have a lead on a Carvin, then you should try it out first, if possible. If it is a SS amp meant for their PA gear, then you may not get a sound you're happy with.

On another note, I've read hear on the forum that some prefer the RM50 tone over the RM100.

BTW, I was trying really hard to not be biased... :wink:

 

[jhideout]

Thanks for the input guys. The carvin amp is tube..I'm not talking about going SS for power..

I guess what I'm asking...is ..the quality over cheaper to moderate priced tube poweramps vs the Randall RM100head..as far as the transformers and circuitry..


I like the convenient package of the RM100 head..but I also like the idea of an amp with 50w and two independent channels in which one can have 6l6's and the other EL34's.


I'm also thinking about just mixing el34's and 6l6's in my RM100 and having it modded to run halfpower Instead of pulling out two tubs.

 

[Mister Joshua]

Very double edged question. I'll start by saying that not much will make the MTS modules sound EXACTLY like their namesakes. So when you say "do the modules justice" i would have to say that beauty is truly in the ear of the beholder.

As far as power amps go i love the RT2/50 due in large part to the MIDI switching, the versatility, and the sound. I've used Carvins in the past both SS and tube and found them to be quite good. I've also used VHT and they are likewise good.

Sadly since Carvin only deals from their few showcase stores you are probably not likely to be able to try before you buy. And with only ten days to return something it may get kind of hairy.

My 2 pennies but i think the Carvin or VHT will work pretty well. If you can i would try to go out and try a few. The RM100 is also a safe bet. Hope that helped.

Peace, Joshua

 

[eyeball987]

On another note, I've read hear on the forum that some prefer the RM50 tone over the RM100.

I heard that too so I bought a RM50 combo. Then I picked up a RM100 head. IMHO, I like the RM100 for use with the modules. If I am using just the power section (say with a modeler) I prefer the RM50.

The RM50 seems to muddy up the modules a bit. Makes them too warm and lacks the definition that I am getting with the RM100. When I run my RP1000 into the return of the power section, the warmth of the RM50 sounds really good with the modeled amps.

 

[dboy5150]

Well for what it's worth I've had both RM100 and RM4/Carvin T100 (the older tube Carvin stereo power amp). And now running RM4 w RT2/50.
The Carvin is a bright, flat amp; it lacks a density control, which I love about the Randall amps. It's light (25lbs) and cheap ($300), which is why I bought it. It's not in the same league for tone as an RT2/50 or VHT, but it weighs about half of those beefy amps, and costs lots less.

The RM100 was my first MTS, and it sounds as good as the RM4/RT250, just not as flexible. (the channel switching on the RT2/50 is f'n amazing).

If you want light and cheap, go Carvin (I've got a mint one for ya!); if you want thunderous tone, go Randall all the way.

 

[pamisano]

I think, for the money, the Peavey Classic Series are some of the best tube power amps out there. the have a great warm tone and are built to last. They come in 50/60/120, but aren't the easiest things to find.

I currently own an RM100 but am using an Egnater M4 w/ a Peavey Classic Series 120. It has a nice warm tone to it and good dynamics. I would prefer the 50, but couldn't find one.

Now, that being said, if you have the money, I would most definately suggest the RT2/50 or the VHT. VHT makes some of the most dynamic and articulate amps out there. The RT2 is also a great amp, with the added midi channel swithing capabilites, the options are endless.

Pete

 

[Julia]

It turns out the lightweight 4 lb Carvin DCM200L didn't have the beef to handle it. I think it had to do with the transformer size. That unit might be great for powering a pair of more hi-fi speakers but it couldn't handle the beef needed for a 412 feel-wise in a gigging situation. Around the studio at home? probably not a problem.

I do know the next step up in the SS line goes to around 30 lbs for a two rack space 200w/ch amp. Crown makes that one. That might have been able to handle it with ease. But we'll never know because he went with a Carvin TS100.

We do know that transformers and transformer quality does heavily impact sound in a tube amp. Why wouldn't it in a SS amp? A lot of guys run their AXE FX units with a Crown amp.

 

[Goldfish]

One 1U power amp that I remember working pretty decently is the old Marshall 8008, if you can find it. 2x80W, sounded decent for low power gigs. Landau supposedly runs one in his current WDW rig. Granted, it's for the wet side channels.

For main dry I don't see any way around a good tube power stage. I'm reminded of the old Rush line: can't get something for nothing...

 

[GtrGeorge!]

The Marshall power amp is quiate good..and while its not as good as tubes..its **** close.
I am sure if Bruce Almighty (The Egnater-man) designed it NOW ..or redisgned the crate power-block PROPERLY*...we could have a 3 module MTS combo amp at a good low cost AND a low weight...a great working man's amp.
Bruce..can ya hear me?
GtrGeorge

* I dont know who initially designed the crate power block. I do not think Bruce was anywhere near it. All Im saying is if he looked at the schematic I bet he could make it, and it would be reliable. Many said it sounded great but nary a unit survived a few months...due to design flaws.