Ampeg Jet and Reverbarocket wattage?

hal · April 28th, 2008, 02:08 PM

Any of you ampeg guys know the wattage of these things? I can't find anything reliable on the internet. I'm interested in the early sixties models with tube rectifiers. And--what is the real difference besides reverb and tremolo? Thanks!

Jim L · April 28th, 2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hal

Any of you ampeg guys know the wattage of these things? I can't find anything reliable on the internet. I'm interested in the early sixties models with tube rectifiers. And--what is the real difference besides reverb and tremolo? Thanks!

Mine had the 7591 power tubes. I always thought it was a 15 watter.

Amazing reverb and trem. It didn't cut it in the band mix, but I never messed around with different (more efficient) speakers.

Radspin · April 28th, 2008, 02:59 PM

This is a bit oversimplified, but--reverb in amps is a simulation of the natural reverberation you'd get in an enclosed space that reflects sound, such as a church, gymnasium or even a bathroom with a lot of hard tile and reflective surfaces. In amps it can be created either by a tank that has springs in it, or in some more modern versions that do this digitally. Listen to Dick Dale for some recorded examples of this, or "Pipeline" by the Chantays which is a classic example.

Tremolo (sometimes mistakenly called "vibrato," as in the case of old Fender amps), is a regular variation in the volume level of the signal coming out of the amp. There are different ways of doing this electronically, which can yield different "flavors," and on many amps you can vary both the speed and intensity of the effect. Probably the most extreme example of this I can think of is the guitar on "Crimson and Clover" by Tommy James and the Shondells (and about midway though the song, they run the vocals through some kind of tremolo effect, although I don't know exactly what it is).

Jim L · April 28th, 2008, 03:09 PM

the post asked "what is the real difference besides reverb and tremolo?"

Not that you're explanations of each aren't interesting!

I'd be interested to know if there's much of a difference between the Jet and Reverberocket other than the trem and 'verb, too, as I've never played thru a Jet. I woudl assume (which with me is always dangerous) that the Reverberocket would have a bit more grit due to the added gain due to the reverb driver tube? Like a BF Princeton vs a BF Princeton Reverb.

ryokan · April 28th, 2008, 05:21 PM

http://www.ggjaguar.com/ampeg.htm

Here ya go...

hal · April 28th, 2008, 07:41 PM

still no wattage on the Jet. Anybody? Thanks.

IceGator8 · April 29th, 2008, 12:36 AM

If you're talking about a reissue Reverberocket the wattage is 50.

Martinp · April 29th, 2008, 02:31 AM

well, looking at the schematics, it looks as though the rockets and jets are similar, given the same age (7591a's vs 6v6 outputs). the rockets have tremolo, the reverbrockets have reverb and tremolo. The Jets have neither, however the reverbojets have reverb. The 7591 amps have around 22 watts (sort of in the Deluxe class), the 6v6 amps a bit less.
I hope this helps

Tremo · April 29th, 2008, 02:42 AM

Those old 7591 Ampegs with cathode bias put out somewhere between 20 and 25 Watts. They ran them low voltage and pretty high current. The Jet and Reverberocket had basically the same output stage so power was the same.

hal · April 29th, 2008, 09:38 AM

Thanks. I was thinking the Jet and the Rocket were basically the same amp except reverb and tremolo. I hope to pick up an early sixties version with 7591's and a tube rectifier.

reverberocket2 · April 29th, 2008, 10:53 AM

I think the Jet's run about 12-15 watts and the Reverberocket's around 18-20watts.

I have a 7591 loaded solid state rectifier '67 Reverberocket 2 it has a lot of clean headroom, does not start to break up till about 2 o'clock on the volume knob

The Jet should have less clean headroom

spankdplank · April 29th, 2008, 02:15 PM

I agree with Reverberocket II's post. I had a mid 60's jet and have have a 67 Reverberocket II. The Jet was about 12 watts and the RRII was about 18 watts. 7591 tubes in both. By comparison, when dimed and compared to my 5E3 clone dimed. The RRII was just slightly louder than the 5E3 and the Jet was slightly less loud, but more noticeably so, than the 5E3. The old Jets are also very dark sounding and even with the tone all the way up are not very bright. Reverborockets are much brighter sounding and are very clean up to about 2/3rds 3/4's up, when they get a super crunchy distortion. Jets go from clean to kind of woolly, but all the way up they are more farty than crunchy. Also, jets have a single tone knob and RR's have individual treble and bass controls. Old Jets are cool practice maps but RR's are much more gig worthy.

hal · April 29th, 2008, 04:01 PM

Now I'm getting some great info. I appreciate the posts. I have in mind to run my Goosell Super 17 my 66 Deluxe or an Ampeg in an A/B configuration. The old Ampeg appeals to me because it is small, like my Goodsell.

Now I'm wondering--if the circuits on the Jet and RR are so similar, why are they at different wattages? Transformers? Speaker effeciency?

teleclarkster · April 29th, 2008, 04:12 PM

I believe my 1961 Jet is about 12 watts.

Tremo · April 30th, 2008, 05:05 AM

Re the mid 60s amps, with SS rectification, both ran the 7591s with about 360 volts on the plates as I recall, both cathode bias. Power output should be about the same.

April 28th, 2008, 02:08 PM	#1 (permalink)
hal Tele-Holic Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 859	Ampeg Jet and Reverbarocket wattage? Any of you ampeg guys know the wattage of these things? I can't find anything reliable on the internet. I'm interested in the early sixties models with tube rectifiers. And--what is the real difference besides reverb and tremolo? Thanks! __________________ Wherever you go, there you are.

April 28th, 2008, 03:09 PM	#4 (permalink)
Jim L Tele-Meister Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Merrimac, MA Posts: 378 13 Photos	Radspin the post asked "what is the real difference besides reverb and tremolo?" Not that you're explanations of each aren't interesting! I'd be interested to know if there's much of a difference between the Jet and Reverberocket other than the trem and 'verb, too, as I've never played thru a Jet. I woudl assume (which with me is always dangerous) that the Reverberocket would have a bit more grit due to the added gain due to the reverb driver tube? Like a BF Princeton vs a BF Princeton Reverb.

April 28th, 2008, 05:21 PM	#5 (permalink)
ryokan Tele-Meister Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 288	http://www.ggjaguar.com/ampeg.htm Here ya go... __________________ www.inksound.com www.myspace.com/chrisaronnelson

April 28th, 2008, 07:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
hal Tele-Holic Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 859	Thanks but... still no wattage on the Jet. Anybody? Thanks. __________________ Wherever you go, there you are.

April 29th, 2008, 02:31 AM	#8 (permalink)
Martinp Tele-Meister Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Westbury, N.Y. Posts: 326	well, looking at the schematics, it looks as though the rockets and jets are similar, given the same age (7591a's vs 6v6 outputs). the rockets have tremolo, the reverbrockets have reverb and tremolo. The Jets have neither, however the reverbojets have reverb. The 7591 amps have around 22 watts (sort of in the Deluxe class), the 6v6 amps a bit less. I hope this helps __________________ mp Westbury, New York

April 28th, 2008, 02:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
Radspin Tele-Meister Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: East Northport, NY Age: 53 Posts: 274	This is a bit oversimplified, but--reverb in amps is a simulation of the natural reverberation you'd get in an enclosed space that reflects sound, such as a church, gymnasium or even a bathroom with a lot of hard tile and reflective surfaces. In amps it can be created either by a tank that has springs in it, or in some more modern versions that do this digitally. Listen to Dick Dale for some recorded examples of this, or "Pipeline" by the Chantays which is a classic example. Tremolo (sometimes mistakenly called "vibrato," as in the case of old Fender amps), is a regular variation in the volume level of the signal coming out of the amp. There are different ways of doing this electronically, which can yield different "flavors," and on many amps you can vary both the speed and intensity of the effect. Probably the most extreme example of this I can think of is the guitar on "Crimson and Clover" by Tommy James and the Shondells (and about midway though the song, they run the vocals through some kind of tremolo effect, although I don't know exactly what it is).

April 29th, 2008, 12:36 AM	#7 (permalink)
IceGator8 TDPRI Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Murray Utah Posts: 24	If you're talking about a reissue Reverberocket the wattage is 50.

April 29th, 2008, 02:42 AM	#9 (permalink)
Tremo Banned Friend of Leo's Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA Posts: 3,803	Those old 7591 Ampegs with cathode bias put out somewhere between 20 and 25 Watts. They ran them low voltage and pretty high current. The Jet and Reverberocket had basically the same output stage so power was the same.

April 29th, 2008, 09:38 AM	#10 (permalink)
hal Tele-Holic Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 859	Ampet wattage... Thanks. I was thinking the Jet and the Rocket were basically the same amp except reverb and tremolo. I hope to pick up an early sixties version with 7591's and a tube rectifier. __________________ Wherever you go, there you are.

April 29th, 2008, 10:53 AM	#11 (permalink)
reverberocket2 Tele-Meister Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 371	I think the Jet's run about 12-15 watts and the Reverberocket's around 18-20watts. I have a 7591 loaded solid state rectifier '67 Reverberocket 2 it has a lot of clean headroom, does not start to break up till about 2 o'clock on the volume knob The Jet should have less clean headroom

April 29th, 2008, 02:15 PM	#12 (permalink)
spankdplank Tele-Holic Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 726 28 Photos	I agree with Reverberocket II's post. I had a mid 60's jet and have have a 67 Reverberocket II. The Jet was about 12 watts and the RRII was about 18 watts. 7591 tubes in both. By comparison, when dimed and compared to my 5E3 clone dimed. The RRII was just slightly louder than the 5E3 and the Jet was slightly less loud, but more noticeably so, than the 5E3. The old Jets are also very dark sounding and even with the tone all the way up are not very bright. Reverborockets are much brighter sounding and are very clean up to about 2/3rds 3/4's up, when they get a super crunchy distortion. Jets go from clean to kind of woolly, but all the way up they are more farty than crunchy. Also, jets have a single tone knob and RR's have individual treble and bass controls. Old Jets are cool practice maps but RR's are much more gig worthy.

April 29th, 2008, 04:01 PM	#13 (permalink)
hal Tele-Holic Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 859	Wattage.. Now I'm getting some great info. I appreciate the posts. I have in mind to run my Goosell Super 17 my 66 Deluxe or an Ampeg in an A/B configuration. The old Ampeg appeals to me because it is small, like my Goodsell. Now I'm wondering--if the circuits on the Jet and RR are so similar, why are they at different wattages? Transformers? Speaker effeciency? __________________ Wherever you go, there you are.

April 29th, 2008, 04:12 PM	#14 (permalink)
teleclarkster Tele-Holic Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Way Out West Age: 54 Posts: 646 10 Photos	I believe my 1961 Jet is about 12 watts.

April 30th, 2008, 05:05 AM	#15 (permalink)
Tremo Banned Friend of Leo's Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA Posts: 3,803	Re the mid 60s amps, with SS rectification, both ran the 7591s with about 360 volts on the plates as I recall, both cathode bias. Power output should be about the same.