| Author |
Topic: NV 400 or NV112? |
Jim Peters
From:
St. Louis, Missouri, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 23 Aug 2004 1:26 pm |
|
| Hi, I need some opinions please(not that anyone on this forum has any!). I'm going to purchase my first steel amp this week, and would like to know what you all think about the PV 400 vs the 112. Price is reasonably comparable, and not the main issue. Who has both amps? Giveme some input, highly subjective is welcome, and encouraged! I haven't yet but will eventually play the steel out( I play 6 string guitar in my band). Right now I use a TKO bass amp with digitec verb, a little brittle. Thanks for all responses. JimP |
|
|
 |
Roger Rettig
From:
Naples, FL
|
Posted 23 Aug 2004 1:35 pm
|
|
This just my opinion, of course, but I'd go with the 112 - I love it for steel, and I also find I can get a very good guitar tone from it. That's not true for the 400, in my view, 'though it's a fine steel amp.
RR |
|
|
|
Kevin Hatton
From:
Buffalo, N.Y.
|
Posted 23 Aug 2004 6:23 pm
|
|
| 112 without a doubt. |
|
|
|
Jeff Lampert
From:
queens, new york city
|
Posted 23 Aug 2004 7:43 pm
|
|
I agree with Roger and Kevin. I did side-by-side comparisons in my house, and the 112 clearly is superior.
------------------
[url=http://www.mightyfinemusic.com/jeff's_jazz.htm]Jeff's Jazz[/url]
|
|
|
|
Eric West
From:
Portland, Oregon, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 23 Aug 2004 7:59 pm
|
|
Ya know, if you are planning on gigging a lot, a 112 might be better as a second amp.
If you only play E9, then the 112 would get you damn near anywhere.
ALso if you are sure that you'll always have a PA when you gig, a 112 would do it even for a double neck.
If you might run into several no PA plugged gigs, getting a 400 would be a better bet.
I've got a 112 that I have used on many different size gigs, from small to large, all miked and it's been enough. I go stereo with my 400 when I can get away with it.
I haven't had to use the 500 any more, though it's all coned with a K130 and ready to ROCK if it comes time. I can Crossover the lows to it, and the highs to the 400 and 112, but can't think of many gigs where I need 500+ watts anymore.
It's a tossup.
These 112s are hard to beat for miked gigs, or medium size non mikers.
Sound is comparable from both.
EJL |
|
|
|
Jim Peters
From:
St. Louis, Missouri, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 23 Aug 2004 8:10 pm
|
|
| Any dissenting opinions? JP |
|
|
|
Michael Johnstone
From:
Sylmar,Ca. USA
|
Posted 24 Aug 2004 8:21 am
|
|
| I suspect that the 112 is a bit underpowered for gigs where you have to fill a medium to large sized club without help from the PA - especially with C6 or a universal. A Nash 400 is about the same size and has a 15" plus 210 watts of power - albeit somewhat heavier but that's what wheels are for. For me the Nash 400 is my failsafe amp of choice when I don't know what to expect on a gig - which is about half the time or better because w/The Riders I constantly play so many places I've never played before. We'll be in a 50 seat coffeehouse w/a great PA one night and a bandshell in a park the next morning playing to 4 acres of folks - w/a minimal PA. They(Nash 400s)are as small as they can be and still do what they do and plus you can get them used,modded and in pretty good shape for cheap. Having said all that,the 112 is a fine little amp and I wouldn't turn my nose up if one were to come my way. -MJ |
|
|
|
Gordon Caffey
From:
Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
|
Posted 24 Aug 2004 9:41 am
|
|
Does the 400 sound good at low volumes also?
Gordon |
|
|
|
seldomfed
From:
Colorado
|
Posted 24 Aug 2004 10:38 am
|
|
I have both. I like the 112 better. Just recently got a 400 as a backup/option and I do like it alot, but I'm constantly surprised by the 112. I like the tone, weight, reverb, and price. With the XLR out to a PA (of any size) I've found that it covers really well. I've even been asked to turn down in situations where we don't XLR out! We play small rooms, big rooms, barns, and rodeos, festivals, etc. outside. - I keep thinking I need a bigger amp cause everyone says it's not meant for gigs and you need lots of watts - but....
I've never played without a PA, so perhaps in that case I'd be wishing for more. But without a PA we can't sing!
Carter D-10, Mullen SD-10, Stringmaster
------------------
Chris Kennison
Ft. Collins, Colorado
"There is no spoon"
www.book-em-danno.com
|
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 24 Aug 2004 1:30 pm
|
|
I've got a pair of Nashville 400s (with Peavey mods) that I dearly love. However, I just picked up a Session 500 off of ebay for $305.00. I have the Peavey mod for it and I'll bet when I get that installed it will knock the pants off of anything new on the market today!!!
Erv[This message was edited by Erv Niehaus on 24 August 2004 at 02:32 PM.] |
|
|
|
Jim Peters
From:
St. Louis, Missouri, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 24 Aug 2004 2:01 pm
|
|
| Thanks to this and the other 112 thread, I'm leaning heavily towards the NV 112. Joey Ace, you can close this. JimP |
|
|
|
Nicholas Dedring
From:
Beacon, New York, USA
|
Posted 25 Aug 2004 5:45 am
|
|
Well, other than the weight factor, it seems odd that you would spend more money, for less amp, with less power and a smaller speaker...
A new 112 will cost noticeably more than a pristine, used 400 (either Session or Nash).
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 25 Aug 2004 6:49 am
|
|
I'm sure if you put the Peavey mod in a Nashville 400, you would have an equally good amp for considerably less money.
Erv |
|
|
|
