# Carvin B2000



## nhersom (May 17, 2010)

I was wondering if the Carvin B2000 is actually worth getting over the Ampeg SVT-4 Pro. I have seen some people think it is better for the money.


----------



## SnowfaLL (May 17, 2010)

Cant comment on that exactly but I love my Carvin BX500, sounds great. Im sure the B2000 is pretty much the same cept more power, and less EQing. 

I'd take it over an Ampeg anyday.


----------



## LordCashew (May 18, 2010)

+1.

I use a B1500 and love it. I can't say definitively it's better than the Ampeg but it's certainly way better bang for the buck.

I've never been an Ampeg user but I know two other bassists who are. Both have had reliability issues with SVT-4s. One crapped out and the price of repairing it was high enough to make replacing it more cost-effective.

My B1500 did fail once under bad power conditions, but Carvin's repair cost (way out of warranty) was very reasonable. Plus, their customer service was exceptional throughout the process.


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (May 18, 2010)

I think the ampeg is the most overrated bass amp in existence.


----------



## Sepultorture (May 19, 2010)

i was looking at that B2000 online the other day, though it may not have the sliders for slightly more refined EQing, it's still pretty good seeing as you can EQ Sub Bass, Bass, Low Mids, Mids, High Mids, and Treble. Most Bass heads i've seen have Bass, Mids, Mid selectable Freq, and Treble, but also include sliders (sometimes)

but also you could put a Graphic Eq or even a Parametric EQ in there somewhere if you wanted more boost and cut options really. The BX series does have a graphic EQ and some Parametric type EQing for the Low and High Mids.

i also agree with the price point, a Carvin B2000 will set you back about $700, Ampeg's on the other hand are almost all over a grand


----------



## SnowfaLL (May 19, 2010)

I think thats the point, the B2000 is more "simple" style, less EQing options, more power.. while the BX series have tons of EQ options. I hardly even use all the crap on my BX500, theres way too much. Just abit of compression, and drive, leave most of the rest around 50% and its perfect.


----------



## TemjinStrife (May 19, 2010)

If you want all the extra features, get the BX1500. The B2000 is the simple one. And, in my opinion/experience, simpler is generally better when it comes to bass.


----------



## Sepultorture (May 19, 2010)

NickCormier said:


> I think thats the point, the B2000 is more "simple" style, less EQing options, more power.. while the BX series have tons of EQ options. I hardly even use all the crap on my BX500, theres way too much. Just abit of compression, and drive, leave most of the rest around 50% and its perfect.


----------



## Sepultorture (May 19, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> If you want all the extra features, get the BX1500. The B2000 is the simple one. And, in my opinion/experience, simpler is generally better when it comes to bass.



only thing is that the B2000 might have more power and simpler layout, but it's like $100 more than the BX1500 which has more options

me i'd rather gun for the BX1500 with a little less power and more tone options than pay $100 more for something with more power and simpler layout


----------



## LordCashew (May 20, 2010)

I'll chime in on EQ as someone who owns a B1500 and an old redline (predecessor to the BX series).

The EQ on the B series is simple yet effective. However it is a bit subtle, and the amp retains its basic sonic character with most settings - not a bad thing IMO but something worth considering. Also, since the bands of the EQ controls overlap, it can be difficult to to fine-tune.

I sometimes find the more powerful EQ section on my old redline head really useful for adjusting my rig to a particular environment. The compressor also comes in handy from time to time, and it can be really convenient to have so many features integrated into the amp. But as was said earlier, simpler is often better. It can be hard to dial in a perfect tone on a complicated amp, but the B series are pretty much plug-and-play with a solid basic tone.


----------



## Sepultorture (May 21, 2010)

LordIronSpatula said:


> I'll chime in on EQ as someone who owns a B1500 and an old redline (predecessor to the BX series).
> 
> The EQ on the B series is simple yet effective. However it is a bit subtle, and the amp retains its basic sonic character with most settings - not a bad thing IMO but something worth considering. Also, since the bands of the EQ controls overlap, it can be difficult to to fine-tune.
> 
> I sometimes find the more powerful EQ section on my old redline head really useful for adjusting my rig to a particular environment. The compressor also comes in handy from time to time, and it can be really convenient to have so many features integrated into the amp. But as was said earlier, simpler is often better. It can be hard to dial in a perfect tone on a complicated amp, but the B series are pretty much plug-and-play with a solid basic tone.



i actually agree with the more simplistic approach to EQing a bass amp, or any amp for that matter. the B2000 does look tempting, and massively more cheap than an ampeg, and i love the simple and effective layout of the SVT classic head

wish i could try one of these B2000's out


----------



## nhersom (May 21, 2010)

That is what i am looking for something simple, that sounds good, for a good price. I could really give a shit about the sliders. Most of the time when I am playing its really loud and only basic EQ really matters.


----------



## SargeantVomit (May 24, 2010)

xtrustisyoursx said:


> I think the ampeg is the most overrated bass amp in existence.




+1. They did what nobody else could in the 60's. Be loud and reliable, but that's all the ever were and they aren't even that anymore compared to the modern alternatives.

Enjoy your Carvin.


----------



## TemjinStrife (May 25, 2010)

The real SVT sound is a classic and a go-to for a reason. However, the newer "SVT" units (especially the hybrid ones) are "SVT" only in name, and just don't really hold up to the standard. The SVT-VR is probably the only "modern" SVT I'd go for, although the CL is pretty nice too.

I will admit to kind of wanting the mini SVT as it sounds surprisingly good and is cute as all hell, but the head and cab are $600-700, and you can get a real amp for that sort of money.


----------



## Sepultorture (May 25, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> The real SVT sound is a classic and a go-to for a reason. However, the newer "SVT" units (especially the hybrid ones) are "SVT" only in name, and just don't really hold up to the standard. The SVT-VR is probably the only "modern" SVT I'd go for, although the CL is pretty nice too.
> 
> I will admit to kind of wanting the mini SVT as it sounds surprisingly good and is cute as all hell, but the head and cab are $600-700, and you can get a real amp for that sort of money.



i love the classic, but really it's still too much money for what it is


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (May 25, 2010)

I was really just referring to the fact that waaaay too many of the bands we play with have those stupid Ampeg Svt heads with a freaking 8x10 cab, as if it's the only amp in existence.


----------



## TemjinStrife (May 25, 2010)

xtrustisyoursx said:


> I was really just referring to the fact that waaaay too many of the bands we play with have those stupid Ampeg Svt heads with a freaking 8x10 cab, as if it's the only amp in existence.



You mean like guitarists who use Marshall and Fender amps? Or metal guys who use Mesas and Peaveys?

Ampeg stuff (SVT/8x10) has a reputation and a sound that is a classic for a reason. It has become associated with rock in the way that the Marshall halfstack has.

Sure, there are lighter, smaller, and more modern units available. Sure, there are more powerful and efficient options (I use one myself.) But honestly, the SVT/8x10 is the sound that everyone thinks of when they think "heavy bass." I love it myself. My issue lies with the things that have been branded as "SVT" that are not "SVTs," and are sold at a premium as a result. 

I would probably use an SVT-VR or CL stack if it weren't for the simple size/weight/volume/transportation considerations that prevent me from hauling an 80lb. head and a 120lb. cabinet to every gig.


----------



## Sepultorture (May 26, 2010)

i do understand the stigma behind Brands like the ones you just mentioned

i remember a time when it was all about the Marshalls, they were THE go to amp in my teens, nowadays it's not so much that anymore, but it's still somewhat prevelant, many still start out with Marshall or Fender

i love the Ampeg sound to be honest, both their heads and cabs, but that doesn't stop other lovers of their gear from experimenting. i did, and i found i actually like Mesa bass cabs more, infact i like their 4x10's more than the Ampeg 8x10. i will keep experimenting until i find what i like, and that's what it boils down to, you like what you like and that's that. if i find a bass head that i can throw on that mesa 4x10 and find that tone or something even better, then fuck yeah i will switch.


----------

