| Author |
Topic: Session 400 and Session 500 |
Paul Norman
From:
Washington, North Carolina, USA
|
Posted 13 Mar 2010 1:54 pm |
|
What is the basic difference in the Session 400 and the Session 500. Not to go into a lot of electronic
explanation. |
|
|
 |
Roger Kelly
From:
Bristol,Tennessee
|
|
|
|
Paul Norman
From:
Washington, North Carolina, USA
|
Posted 13 Mar 2010 4:41 pm
|
|
| Thanks Roger. |
|
|
|
Darvin Willhoite
From:
Roxton, Tx. USA
|
Posted 14 Mar 2010 1:13 pm
|
|
The biggest difference is about 30 lbs. An appropriate nickname for the Session 500 is the "Hernia 500". I have one I bought new in 1981 and it still sounds great, I just don't move it around.
_________________
Darvin Willhoite
MSA Millennium, Legend, and Studio Pro, Reese's restored Universal Direction guitar, a restored MSA Classic SS, several amps, new and old, and a Kemper Powerhead that I am really liking. Also a Zum D10, a Mullen RP, and a restored Rose S10, named the "Blue Bird". Also, I have acquired and restored the plexiglass D10 MSA Classic that was built as a demo in the early '70s. I also have a '74 lacquer P/P, with wood necks, and a showroom condition Sho-Bud Super Pro. |
|
|
|
Cliff Kane
From:
the late great golden state
|
Posted 14 Mar 2010 2:04 pm
|
|
| I believe the Session 400's--at least the early ones--were pre-IC chip amps, so the circuit consist of all discrete components. I don't know if this applies to the Session 500's but I think that is one thing that sets the 400 apart from the other Peavey amps. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this. |
|
|
|
Jim Bates
From:
Alvin, Texas, USA
|
Posted 16 Mar 2010 12:06 pm
|
|
The difference is 'the sound'. I tried both the Session 400 and the 500. I chose the 500 because the reverb was very clean and clear, like my old Sho-Bud / Cain amp, plus the low end was was smoother at lower volume than the 400s.
Thanx,
Jim |
|
|
|
Zach Keele
From:
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA
|
Posted 16 Mar 2010 8:20 pm
|
|
That Session 500 is the heaviest amp I've ever owned. I sold mine. It sounded fine in it's corner at home. I'm 25 years old, but I wouldn't tote that rascal around for $50 a night.  |
|
|
|
Duane Brown
From:
Reno,Nevada USA
|
Posted 17 Mar 2010 9:32 am
|
|
| To me there's no comparison in the two amps. I had lots of friends using 400's when they first came out and they were the best thing going at the time. I bought a '78 LTD400 and loved it until the first Session 500 came to Reno in late 1980. I took it to the job and fell in love the first note I hit. The 500 has the biggest sound I ever heard and I used it as my primary amp until two years ago when I got a Nashville112. The 12" speaker has more response and the amp only weighs 30+lbs so the 500 stays home. Still think it's better than the 400. It's heavy, but I'd carry it to get the sound. Now, I'm older and smarter,and everything is miked so no need for 300watts and 85lbs anymore. |
|
|
|
Jim Bates
From:
Alvin, Texas, USA
|
Posted 17 Mar 2010 10:22 am
|
|
Just to add a note - I use only the JBL E130 in my Session 500's. The JBL gives me a much smoother response at the lower volumes. so my 500's are a little heavier than the ones with the BW speaker.
Thanx,
Jim |
|
|
|
