Fender Twin VS Roland Cube

[Johan Jansen]

I am a big Roland Cube fan, to me it beats the nash 112, but can't be compared with the sound of a nash 400 session 400or 500 or an old twin.
If weight and price are no issue, I would go for the real thing instead of a modeling amp like a cube.
JJ

[Ken Byng]

The hernia factor is an issue with the twin. Buddy Emmons once commented he wished he could have the sound of a Fender with the punch of a Peavey.

That is precisely why I bought a Webb amp.

For an earlier poster to say the sound of the Roland 80 to be crappy just untrue. I have owned a Fender Twin and Super Twin. Great amps but very, very heavy. if you can live with the weight, then I would say go with a reissue. However, don't dismiss the little Roland 80XL before giving it a good try first as you might be pleasantly surprised.

[b0b]

I think there's a difference between a live stage amp and a recording amp. When you're recording, you never get the actual sound of the amp. You get the sound of the playback system.

I use by Mesa/Boogie tube amp for performing, but I record direct with a Line6 PodXT. I honestly can't say that that the Boogie sounds better for recording, but there's no way I can get that big tube sound on stage with any modeling amp.

[Tony Prior]

Tony, I bet that would turn some heads if you showed up at a gig with those two Super Beatles for a steel rig.

Problem is I can't figure out how to get one of them to a gig ! Even if I did, then I would have to figure out how to get it back home again ! The cabs weigh 100 pounds....and it's not even so much about the weight, they are on trolly's and they are pretty much impossible to do anything with them other than look at them or roll em' around !

Somehow, I did manage to get them home and up a flight of stairs to my music room ...getting them back down the stairs and into the Van I suspect would require someone else to do it ! Not me !

[Tony Prior]

A brand new Twin reissue goes for around $1350-$1400. Are these worth it?

On eBay right now there is a 1967 Twin that is well-used with the bids still coming in for around $1000.

And there's a "mint condition" 1965 for around $4900. Man, that's a lot of money for an amp. It's going to take a lot of $50-$100 per gig paydays to recoup your money on that one. Well - you probably wouldn't bring that to a gig anyway because of the value, but if you're not a studio musician that's a lot of money for living room playing enjoyment.

My take, NO, not a new RI, not when you can obtain a very clean 70's SF Twin in the +/- 800 category . Even less....72's and up can be had in the $500 and up range in decent shape...I would not be afraid of one of those or even the later series with the Ultralinear output transformers, these are all good amps...

The earlier versions, Blackface, to my way of thinking are really not that much better or different than a 68 thru 71...but the prices for them are up there. I paid $800 for my 71...stock , all original...I would rate it a 9 on the condition scale, maybe 9.5....It had a previous cap job and I have replaced a few tubes now and then, but other than that it is the workhorse. It lives under a cardboard box cover when not on the gig...it also gets transported with the mother of cardboard box cover. It looks like it is new.

The thing about this amp though is I located it a small guitar show 2 years ago, it was in some guys booth , behind a bunch of other stuff so sharp eyes to see it were required. Sitting there it was filthy....It looked like it had not been cleaned since..well..71....But..looking past the dirt..it was in excellent shape, original Utah's, the SF panel was in excellent condition, very few dings on the bottom edge..grill cloth etc..all excellent, The amp a was just real dirty ! So I made a trade deal in the $800 range and home it came...I took the amp completely apart, gave it a full bath...checked the chassis etc..put it back together and ended up with basically a mint 71...

[Tony Prior]

I also find it fascinating that the Steel Guitr community has adopted the Nashville 400 amps as an "ICON" It is a great amp, I have owned 3 of them thru the years.....

The Nashville 400 is listed as 67 pounds from Peavey.

BUT

The Fender Twin Reverb is considered a monster, too heavy , good grief..don't get one of those it will pull your arm out of the socket...


Amazingly Fender has the Twin Reverb RI spec'd at 64 pounds... you do know 64 is less than 67 , right ?


SF and BF twins are spec'd at 69 pounds...


So 67 pounds is acceptable but 69 is not ?

I think many of us here who have never owned a Twin are reading from the old wives tale handbook....

[Ken Byng]

Tony
I can tell you from experience that a Fender Twin (especially one with 2 x 12" JBL's) is an arm socket dislocator.

I have yet to lift any Fender Twin that is lighter than my NV 400.

[Earl Foote]

All this talk about Twins has got me wanting to convert my QuadReverb in to a Twin again (until I decide to convert it back again)

Thanks for showing the Super Beatles Tony.

[Tony Prior]

Tony
I can tell you from experience that a Fender Twin (especially one with 2 x 12" JBL's) is an arm socket dislocator.

I have yet to lift any Fender Twin that is lighter than my NV 400.

Ken, well, I think the argument is..the N400 weighs 67 pounds by Peavey's own description...A Twin, with stock speakers is around 70, sure with JBL's it's more agreed, MOST TWINS do not have JBL's...

The statements are always "It's a beast, it weighs too much"...

Stock Twins weighs 2 pounds more than the Nville 400, it weighs maybe 8 to 10 pounds more than MANY conventional 50 or 60 watt tube amps.

The Twin doesn't weigh 70 pounds more than any other strong tube amp, it weighs a few pounds more...not twice the weight. If you are already carrying a 60 pound amp or a Nashville 400..well..why is the Twin considered a beast ? Thats all I am saying...

[Dave Mudgett]

I agree with Tony 100%. If a stock Twin Reverb is too heavy, then certainly a stock Session/Nashville 400/500 is too heavy. Heaviest amp I've ever dealt with was a Session 500 - Twins and 400's are pretty much interchangeable to me, weight-wise.

If you really want to lower the weight, get a Dual Showman Reverb head (same chassis as a Twin Reverb) or put your Twin/Session/Nashville chassis in a head-only cab and/or put in some lightweight neodymium speakers.

I think a lot of the modeling amps like the Roland, Line6, Digitech RP series, and so on, are very useful tools. I prefer a little Pod run into whatever amp I feel like over the Rolands, but that's just my personal taste and what I'm used to. But comparing any of them to a Twin Reverb or any of the other 'big boys' is completely apples and oranges, as has already been previously said. That may be good or bad, depending on your outlook.

I also agree with earlier comments that a lot of this new modeling stuff is throwaway technology. Seriously, the service policy on a lot of currently built amps and, frankly, other electronic gear is, "Replace if under warranty, no service when out of warranty." I don't specifically know Roland's policy, but that really is the way it works for a lot of modern electronics.

As far as old Fender tube amps being hard to service - I disagree. Maybe if you're in a very remote area, it's gonna be hard to find anybody local to service much of anything. But those old Fender amps are well-built and straightforward to service for anybody that knows how to work with tube amps, and there is a whole cottage industry built up around supplying the correct parts for and servicing these old amps. Ask Ken Fox about servicing those wave-soldered, double-sided, thin PC board amps with tiny traces. Good grief, man - you can't seriously be comparing these in serviceability.

[Tim Marcus]

Don't forget how much your steel weighs! My Rains D-10 is over 70 pounds in its case. My 55lb twin sized Milkman feels like a feather compared to that.

[b0b]

Steel players are into big, heavy gear. Somehow I've managed to get my entire rig down to under 100 lbs. thanks to modern sound reinforcement. These days, whenever a lot of volume is required they hire a sound guy to mike the amps. Downsizing to an S-10 helps, too.

[Tim Marcus]

this is true - I use a 20W amp and an S10 for most gigs these days.

However for recording, its gotta be a high watt tube amp. Nothing sounds close - especially in a high end studio where you can move some air

[Ken Byng]

I find that some solid state modelling amps have a degree of latency between the picked note and what is processed as a tube amp for instance. My POD suffers from this slight latency, whereas my Roland 80XL does not. Vox and Line 6 are two modelling amps that I have tried that have latency issues.

While on the subject of tube amps (or valve amps as we refer to them in the UK), I have owned a 100w 2 x 12" Peavey Valve King for 2 or 3 years, and it weighs far less than my old silverface Fender Twin with JBL's. It sounds great for my Tele, but not so good with my pedal steels whereas my Twin sounded good with both.

Bang for the buck, the Roland gives wonderful value for money. However, you cannot compare it to a Fender Twin - they are two distinctively different animals. One thing that I don't miss with using a Twin is the cost of replacing tubes. That's a cost that is a good saving, especially my Super Twin that had 6 x 6l6GC bottles. The price of decent tubes in the UK has gone through the roof.

[Dave Mudgett]

I picked up a '57 tweed 4x10" Fender Bassman last year. Not only does it sound great, and surprisingly loud when needed, but it weighs in at a mere 47 pounds, which is within a pound or two of what my Nashville 112 or Deluxe Reverb weigh. I guess the lack of reverb does make a significant weight difference, easily remedied with outboard gear.

If I wanted to really lighten the load, I'd go back to playing strictly guitar. But most times I take the Zum U12 out to gigs, about 55 pounds in the case, not too bad.

I find latency to be an issue with all the modelers. Strangely, I find less in the old Pod 2 than the newer ones - I don't know for sure, but perhaps the newer DSP algorithms are more complex and hence take longer to execute. But I mainly use that for guitar - I still prefer the old Peavey Tubefex (or Profex) for steel. I know they're ancient, but somehow they musta' been thinking about pedal steel when they designed those. For me, the only issue is that the noise floor is higher than some of the higher-end rack effects units - not generally an issue at gigs, but sometimes noticeable with humbucking Lawrence pickups in the studio with a picky engineer. I just tell them I can bring in the guitar with the single-coils, and then they'll never notice the effects' noise floor.

[Bob Hoffnar]

Ken,

If you judge how good an amp sounds by how little it weighs and the fact that it is cheap enough to buy a new one when it craps out rather then replace a tube then the Roland sounds fantastic. Other than that I have heard them up close and played through them and in my opinion the are indeed crappy sounding amps. I also think that vinyl records sound better than Cds. And Cds sound better than mp3s.

[Tim Marcus]

If you judge how good an amp sounds by how little it weighs and the fact that it is cheap enough to buy a new one when it craps out rather then replace a tube then the Roland sounds fantastic.

well said

[Donny Hinson]

So what would you recommend, Bob? I don't know if this is for lap steel or pedal steel, but I've been pretty happy with my Roland Cube 80x. It's loud, clean, quiet, and easy to move.

Brad, as others have said, the two amps have a completely different character. Bob likes a very thin sound without a lot of body, and one that "cuts through" other instruments. The Twin excels at that. Other players prefer a fuller, richer sound, and those players will like the Cube because it is built for that specific character. Open back amps like the Twin are very difficult to get fullness out of with without really cranking the volume up. Smaller, closed amps, on the other hand, excel at fullness and richness at lower volumes, and seem "punchier", despite having less power.

[Bob Hoffnar]

Bob likes a very thin sound without a lot of body, and one that "cuts through" other instruments.

Wow ! Nobody has ever told me that before. Make sure you don't tell the bands or producers I work for because it would ruin me.

BTW: I have tried using non tube amps in the studio and was promptly sent home to get a real amp. I did it without the producer being able to see my gear. I have used modeling gear for jingle sessions and they worked fine for the job. Very different experience as far as my ability to express myself and tone goes. Some of the modeling stuff is pretty amazing and its getting better. Not there yet though.

And for Brad: as far as new amps go that are not too expensive and that are pretty light the Fender Blues Jr/deville type amps seem good to my ear.

I can't believe you guys can't hear the difference tonal quality and depth between amps ! If you can hear the difference between an mp3 and a vinyl record it should be obvious.

[Steven Finley]

I agree that the Nashville 400 with the factory mods is a great steel amp. I even swapped out the speaker for a neo to lighten the load.
However, with every year that goes by, my equipment seems to gain weight. And yes, in the old days, I used to carry around those Fender Twins;
notice I said Twins (plural) as I liked the stereo effect. (Now I'm a 2 Cube owner).

Now, for those of us who believe that lugging heavy equipment feels like more of a strain than it used to be, you're right! As my Dr. explained to me,
there is a bonus to the aging process, the ligaments and tendons are not attached as securely to the bones as when we were younger; therefore, yes,
it is more of a strain on the body, and you get to imitate Stretch Armstrong and can even pull yourself apart.

Comparing the Twin and the Cube is like the old cliche of comparing apples and oranges--they are different. Choosing to switch to a Cube is a no-brainer
if you are over 50--maybe even younger if you are not into masochism.

[Tony Prior]

Imagine for a moment that Loyd Green used a Roland Cube on the Live @ Panther Hall LP.

[b0b]

How was his twin miked for that, Tony? Was there bleed into other on-stage mics?

[Butch Mullen]

I had a post on 3 aug about putting handles on the ends peavey amps. Just wandering if I'm the only one doing this. Makes it easier to pull around on the rollers too. Butch 28681

[Ken Byng]

Ken,

If you judge how good an amp sounds by how little it weighs and the fact that it is cheap enough to buy a new one when it craps out rather then replace a tube then the Roland sounds fantastic. Other than that I have heard them up close and played through them and in my opinion the are indeed crappy sounding amps. I also think that vinyl records sound better than Cds. And Cds sound better than mp3s.

Bob - I judge an amp by using my ears. I have heard tube amps that sound great and some not so great. I have heard solid state amp that sound superb - my Webb for example, and some that sound dreadful (no names). Vinyl records sound good but not the clicks and static. CD's vs MP3? My old ears would struggle to hear the difference these days. I had great ears when I was in my 20's, but even now the Roland sounds pretty decent.

You don't like the Cubes? Well there are lots of alternatives out there to keep you satisfied, but I think they are well worth auditioning before they are dismissed by anyone. If you think that non-tube amps are not worth playing through, this guy gets a pretty good sound through his. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZoPTJNmiCw

Compare to the tone here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-ftGVWwew I'll stick to the Roland thanks.

[Tony Prior]

How was his twin miked for that, Tony? Was there bleed into other on-stage mics?

Well...When Loyd told us the story he only talked about the Twin reverb which was borrowed from a local music store..he didn't talk about the mic...so I don't know the answers !