Peavey Firebass or Carvin R1000

[Jay J.]

I am looking to move up from my 100w combo to a head and cab set-up mostly because I need the juice. I have looked at both of these guys and they both seem to be pretty nice and are priced right for me. for now I am going to be running it through an avatar 4x10. any input you could give me on which cab to go with would be great, having a hard time making up my mind.

 

thanks!

[SteveC]

Forget Peavey and Carvin, get an SWR. Maybe an SM500 or Bass 750. I have had SWR for years and it's always been great.

[G.O.C.]

I have a Carvin R1000 head.

 

It rocks! It has some real handy features like a DI (very handy for gigs, your sound guy will love ya for that!), plus a half decent compressor.

 

I have used the head for a good few gigs aswell as recording. It has proven itself time and again to be a worthwhile investment!

 

I agree that for sound quality it is not perfect and an Ampeg head does sound a little better.

 

But in the mix it sounds just a phat!

 

This head gives me a range of sounds from an extreme metal (think Pantera) style to a more relaxed dub tone!

 

I've had trouble getting a good slap tone, but I am pretty sure that is down to me!

 

Would I would recommend it???

 

It depends on your budget! For me it has proven itself to be a very nice piece of equipment.

[ikestr]

I have a Carvin R600 head and I can tell you that it is a great head. Ive used it for all sorts of gigs including rock, funk, dance, disco, country, easy listening and it has performed quite well.

 

I have played the Peavey Firebass and it is a godd head as well. The only thing is that the Firebass puts out 700w @2 ohms where the Carvin puts out 1000w @4 ohms. This doesnt seem like much of a difference but if you play through an 8 ohm cab then the Carvin will give you 500w where the Peavey will give you 175w. Big difference. If your cab is 4 ohm then the Carvin will give you 1000w and the Peavey 350w.

 

My numbers may be a little off because Im doing this from memory, you might want to check the websites and the specs.

 

ikestr

[tim4003]

J-Funk, A little FYI for you to think about before you decide:

www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&th

Hope this helps!

[tim4003]

Sorry, my URL didn't work! Do this:

Go to www.talkbass.com

Click on "Bass Guitars" on the left side under "Forums"

Click "Amps"

Look for thread "Warning to CARVIN R600/1000 series II owners"

[bsplyr]

If you can hold out and save your money for a little longer, I'd recommend one of the bigger SWR's or Ampegs. I have a Mo' Bass now, but I worked through a pile of Peaveys, hybrids, Frankensteins, etc. to get here, spending a ton of money along the way. Sooner or later, you'll probably end up with one of the bigger rigs...you'll save money and aggravation by waiting until you can go that way.

 

Good luck!

[g.]

A couple people here have suggested that it would be aggravating to get either a Peavey or Carvin head (no matter what vintage, model, or features). Hey, they say - the brand name says it all...

 

Not so. Either of the heads you mentioned has power, durability, good signal-to-noise, versatile tone shaping and very capable of quality tones {whether each person can find it is another issue; sometimes it's just easier to go with the default voicing of whatever faceplate one is convinced has the right image ; }

 

One advantage of the Carvin over the Peavey in this case is two channels of power amp, with bridging or dual mono full range, or biamping capability. If you don't need this then it comes down to price and other features. I think the Carvin has a few additional desirable features (channel/EQ switching, better than usual noise gate and compression), but the Firebass at the right price used is still one of the best higher-powered values around.

 

The highest price SWR or _insert_brand_name_here_ stuff might have some feature or tonal slant you prefer (and they damn well better for the price). Or they might not. There is nothing inherently superior, only different. You can build a no-excuses-needed bass rig around anything in this weight class if it initially meets your tonal ideals. They all seem to be pretty versatile.

 

Some people actually don't care for "the SWR sound" ferinstance. But I've found their higher line gear flexible enough to not be locked into the stereotype. Same with anything else in this weight class, so don't think buying something more affordable is going to compromise your quality or have you scrambling for another rig a year later. I'd be more concerned about cabs in that regard.

[deanmass]

I agree with Greenboy on this brand issue. I have heard some SWR's that sound bad, some Peavey's that sound bad, etc..

 

In many,many ways, I think sound is subjective. The best sounding amp I ever owned was a Yorkville Bloc250B that I got used for $125 bucks. I had a Peavey Bi-Amped rig that made a ton of BASS, but the sound was very sloppy, which is a trait I find with nearly every Peavey Amp I have heard. The Hartke stuff always sounds very tight to me, but I think they have real reliablity issues. I also find Ampeg stuff to be a bit sloppy sounding, but I have not played through as many.

 

My advice? Play as many as you can, and buy the one that sounds best. I love Carvin stuff, so I think they should be on the top of the list. If you like he Peavey, buy it. One thing about Peavey, is that it is bullet proof, so if it sounds good, buy it.

[g.]

I think I could get a satisfying tone or five, and plenty of loudnezz™, out of any of the more recent and upscale offerings by any of the companies. Again, cab and speakers can either leverage or detract more in terms of "tightness", linearity, articulation or transient response, or holes in the frequency response, and best use of the wattage one has.

 

Tubes or tube emulation of course will affect the basic tone and have their pluses and minuses, and here is where it can really get subjective, and also challenge one's search for the holy grail...

[bassmangreg]

I'm not sure about the Carvin but I have the Firebass and it sure don't excite me very much. It seems to lack tone and power and equilization.

Ummh...I wish I had a SVT Pro 4.

[g.]

Odd. I went to a Battle of the Bands last weekend and the bassist who had the loudest and most articulated and defined sound was playing a Firebass through current Peavey 2x10 and 15. I guess he knew what he wanted and how to get it.

 

I haven't played enough with a Firebass to see if I could get a grunty Ampeg-type tubey sound out of it, but it sure seemed to have enough EQ to build various curves. Just got to understand the design philosophy to best use any amp's EQ section...

 

Though semi-paremetrics are more powerful as problem solvers I tend to prefer multi-band graphics for their obviousness. Nice twist: the EQ section of an Ashdown (which I think are great amps) is interesting because you actually have a multi-band graphic, but they've made it look like a three knob setup, and then thrown in a couple of extra bands in between the knobs for more possibilities in shaping. Tricky. Because it's just a setup that encourages one to think differently about EQ, and not really any different behind the front panel.

 

I didn't care for the Alembic F1-X's relative lack of EQ shaping, but I did like its default sound. Ironically, now that I'm using something that has more EQ options (Peavey Max), I'm almost always running very close to flat on the SS side, but can get more radical and unique voicing easily if needed. The tube side is phat and people see my Ampeg cab and assume I'm playing through an Ampeg SVT preamp or head of some type when using the tube side, or the tube side blended with the SS side. That's good for a chuckle.

[g.]

Heads/preamps with contour push-buttons labeled "ultradeep" or "punch" or whatever often overcome players' reticence to actually tweak. Because, I guess, from a couple of feet away you can look at the front panel and not see that some radical voicing is being applied. One button punched and one can savor the illusion that they are still running relatively flat in a way that several knobs or switches moved would never support.

 

Ironically, I've seen some players' settings: the knobs or switches practically creating the opposite curve of the contour settings they've applied. If they were guitarists they'd probably be the type to turn all EQ section knobs to 11...

[bassmangreg]

Greenboy....sounds like you are pretty excited about the Firebass, but it don't seem to do very much for me. I am making this comparison based upon my American made Fender jazz 5. It might be the passives but it sucks to me. I've noticed that with my active basses like the Lakland and the Spector and the Zon it seems a bit warmer and louder (sounds pretty good) but not so much with the jazz bass.

[g.]

I'm not excited by it. I just know that it's a decent piece of gear with an admirable cost/perfomance ratio, and that I can get plenty of great sounds out of it, no problemo. And I've heard a few other people use them with laudable results.

 

I'm actually much more sold on the Carvin for both price and features, and think it competes with stuff that's quite a bit more expensive. Still, I haven't needed to investigate either beyond what I have - because I already have a rig that can do anything I've wanted and then some. I got the ultimate rig for me : }

 

As a sidenote, I hung out with a good decades-experienced bassist today for about an hour and we talked of many things. One thing that came up I thought I'd share is that he loves his Hartke Kickback combo for portability and getting him through his smaller yet fairly loud gigs - partly because it puts the sound where he can hear it. So though I'd never buy Hartke cabs, maybe they do something else that has been valuable to competent-and-beyond working musicians. He was into my Carvin 2x10 tiltback wedge too, though. The concept is a pretty great one.