Peavey Reverb - is it just me (or am I crazy)..?

Chas Holman · Post by **Chas Holman** » 7 Mar 2001 8:45 am

I'm curious if I'm the only one who has changed over from the 'older' style Peavey amps (Session, LTD) to the 'newer' Nashville style and noticed the drastic difference in the amount of available reverb 'depth'.

My old LTD can sound like you're playing in the bottom of the Grand Canyon, whereas my newer NV-400 can't even get close to the depth. Honestly, I have tried three different Nashville 400's and all have about the same reverb 'depth', which seems to be about half of what my older amps have.

And, YES, I am using additional reverb now (an RV-3) with the NV-400, but I don't even need it with my old LTD.

-Chas

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 7 Mar 2001 9:24 am

It's not you. If you compare the Peavey reverbs to a Fender the Peavey's suck. I had a hard time getting used to the reverb in my Session 500 after switching from a Twin Reverb Fender. The Session 500 seemed like there wasn't any reverb there. After a while you accept the reverb isn't the same and live with it. My Nashville 400's reverb is about the same as the Session 500. However, I generally only set the reverb on 4 and after playing Peavey amps for 20 years I guess I've been acclimated to the reverb in them.

Larry Clark · Post by **Larry Clark** » 7 Mar 2001 11:32 am

After getting accustomed to the reverb on Fender and Musicman amps I was a bit dissapointed with the reverb on my Nashville 400. So like Mr.Cole I set the reverb on 0 and got a MPX 100. Problem solved!

Fred Murphy · Post by **Fred Murphy** » 7 Mar 2001 12:30 pm

I am not too enthused about Peavey Reverbs either, but if you use a good delay with it, and only turn it up to about 2 to 3 it is adequate. I don't like playing with just the reverb though. If you turn it up any more it just gets hollow. The 2000 gives you a lot more choices and some are not too bad.

Kevin Mincke · Post by **Kevin Mincke** » 7 Mar 2001 1:55 pm

Yep,I'll have to concur with the rest of the posts here & that is the reason I have two Webbs! I love the reverb in the Webbs, much like a Fender. I do think Peavey makes an EXCELLENT product & have owned a several different Peaveys' over the years,however have always been disappointed in the reverb!

Mark Herrick · Post by **Mark Herrick** » 7 Mar 2001 6:18 pm

Just curious (again!) but aren't the Fender reverb tanks a "4-spring" tank? (Which means actually that it has 2 springs that are each conncected in the middle.) I know the Peaveys are a "6-spring" tank (really 3 springs) because I just ordered a new one from Sound Enhancements, Inc. who make the Accutronics reverb tanks that are used in most of these amps.

I think the more springs the greater the depth of the reverb effect. You can check out the Sound Enhancements website for more info:
www.accutronicsreverb.com

Kevin Mincke · Post by **Kevin Mincke** » 7 Mar 2001 9:44 pm

Your right Mark but I think it has a lot to do with the reverb circuit in the amp itself along with the longer springs (2 connected in center) vs. shorter ones (6) as in Peavey.

Mark Herrick · Post by **Mark Herrick** » 8 Mar 2001 10:22 am

Just checked again on the Sound Enhancements website. Also on this site:
www.members.tripod.com/~roymal/accutron.htm

And find that the Fender Twin and the Peaveys have the same length springs, but only 2 in the Fender as opposed to 3 in the Peavey.

I'm sure the design of the reverb circuit has much to do with the sound as well.

Bill Crook · Post by **Bill Crook** » 8 Mar 2001 11:50 am

Look at the physical make-up of the two type spring units....

1)The 3 spring unit is in the shape of an elongated "Z". It has to work harder to move the 3rd spring so the resultant output is really rather weak and tinny. I think the reason for the 3 spring unit is because of space restrictions (in cabinets,heads)of many OEM vendors.

2)Now take the 2 spring units(actually 4 springs are involved here), They are stright in line,side by side, (Double your drive to the output transducer)and are strung kinda loosely. These units have a much better sound than the 3 springers. Thats why the amp raises hell when you jar it around. The 3 spring units (in general) don't slap the houseing as much because they are strung tighter AND are of much shorter springs.

The longer springs in the 2 spring unit adds the depth and resonants we hear with them.

During my earlier days in electronics, I made a bunch of "Reverb" devices for several of the local players here in Nashville. Real simple, Took 2 ceramic phono cartriges, (the cheap ones, used in childrens record players) streched a standard rubber band beween them and let the players select the sound they liked best. You could get a tinny sound or you could get a sound so low that it rattled the speakers.

The delay was better than what we are accustomed to nowadays too. Different rubberbands created some very unuasual results.

All in all tho, I think the electronic reverbs and delay boxes are better and more reliable than the older tanks.

Chas Holman · Post by **Chas Holman** » 8 Mar 2001 1:20 pm

Thanks for everyone's input....but:

The question has little to do with a comparison of Peavey to Fender. What I am struggling with here is the difference between an older Peavey LTD 400 and the newer Nashville 400. Interestingly, the LTD has a 2 (or 4) spring setup (I think that's a type 4 Reverb) whereas the NV-400 has the 3 (or 6) spring setup (which I believe is a type 9). I have swapped out the pans (i.e., put the 3 spring in the LTD and the two spring in the NV) and this seems to have NO effect on the depth of either amp.

I think Kevin's on the right track with the issue being "in the circuitry".

Jack - as you seem to have a better overall understanding of this than I do I'll ask you; is there a way to 'sweeten up' or 'beef up' the NV-400's to equal what the old style LTD and Session 400's put out..? via some component swap or resistance/capicitance changeout..?

Any help would be appreciated - and thaks again to all who have 'chimed in' so far,

-Chas

[This message was edited by Chas Holman on 08 March 2001 at 04:18 PM.]

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 8 Mar 2001 1:42 pm

I haven't dug into the NV400 reverb circuit and don't know what could be done to "deepen" the reverb.

Bobby Boggs · Post by **Bobby Boggs** » 8 Mar 2001 8:00 pm

I don't know if year model makes any difference but I hated the reverb or lack of in my 90 model N-400.I had it checked out by a local dealer they said everything was fine.But it sounded like a Fender with one spring missing.No depth or richness.So I bought a stomp box digital reverb and solved the problem.But my 97 & 98 model Nashvilles have a reverb sound much more like the 70's models Session 400's.

Randy Pettit · Post by **Randy Pettit** » 9 Mar 2001 7:50 am

Speaking of the RV-3, what's the optimal method of connnection if I'm playing through a Sesson 500 with the volume pedal to/from patch?

Chas Holman · Post by **Chas Holman** » 9 Mar 2001 10:22 am

Bobby - you bring up an interesting point, and I think I'm gonna ask Mike Brown about the "age factor" difference in the reverb circuitry.

Randy - I don't know what others do, but I simply go from my volume pedal output to the input of the RV-3 and then from the output of the RV-3 right into the main input of my Nashville-400. I keep the NV-400's spring reverb on about 6 or 7 and only use the RV-3 when I want a really 'deep' reverb - slow tunes, etc.

-Chas

Bobby Boggs · Post by **Bobby Boggs** » 9 Mar 2001 10:52 am

Chas,I don't use much spring reverb.I set mine on about 3.But my Late 90's N-400's have more reverb and is a fuller deeper sounding reverb than the late 80's model I owned.On the other hand my Session 500 was eat up with reverb.All amps were bought new.Go figure.bb

Craig A Davidson · Post by **Craig A Davidson** » 13 Mar 2001 7:13 am

Chas, I changed the cans in my Nashville with one I have had a long time and my reverb is a lot better. Something else happened too. Some of that god-awful mid-range honk is gone. The reverb difference is night and day. I must have lucked out and got a can suited for the electronics in the amp. Don't know where I got it but I do remember buying three or four of them at an auction one time. I do know that it is an Accutronics, just like the original.

------------------

Fred Murphy · Post by **Fred Murphy** » 13 Mar 2001 8:40 am

I think it is most likely in the internal circuits of the various amps. I like the Session 500 reverb. When the mod is added, it is an awesome amp. The reverb is better than in any of the other Peaveys in my opinion. Also, I would not recommend putting wheels on the Session 500. They are very top heavy, and can be turned over easily when you put wheels on them. You are better off using a cart, if you don't want to carry it. A friend of mine just did major damage to his amp because of the wheels.[This message was edited by Fred Murphy on 13 March 2001 at 08:52 AM.]

Chas Holman · Post by **Chas Holman** » 13 Mar 2001 8:52 pm

Thanks to everyone for their replies to this thread. Craig, I think I'm gonna give the "different can" approach one more shot as, not unlike you, I just got two different models in an auction.

For everyone's info - my '70's issue LTD will be back in action before my upcoming New Mexico and Colorado gigs (whew..!) and it has REAL spring reverb..!! My plan is to take the LTD and the NV-400 with me, in case of any 'trouble'. I have also recently acquired an old Boss RV-2 reverb unit which I'm told is MUCH better than the RV-3 I'm using now. (I don't much care for the RV-3, but I've been forced to use it)..

-Chas

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 14 Mar 2001 8:49 am

Most new amps (Fender included) have crappy reverbs. The short reverb tanks are a complete joke, and should not be found in any amplifier over $250. They use them because they're cheaper, smaller, and because they "clash" a lot less. Nice intent, but a dumb idea...as far as sound goes.