Super vs Twin reverb

[fenderboi]

Just wanted to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Obviously the difference is 45w vs 85w and 2x12 vs 4x10 but I more want to know what you guys prefer and why. Also what are some of your favorite tones you can get with them?

[GuitarStv]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

I like the twin. It seems to sound consistently the same, regardless of the volume you play it at. The super reverb sounds different depending on how loud you get it. The super doesn't give up much (if anything) in volume to the Twin, just a little headroom.

[ItsaBass]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

The Super is "juicier" sounding. It's awkward to carry (it's tall and it leans one way when carried by the top handle).

Both need to be loud to really get crunchy.

I prefer the Super. The Twin is just too darned clean and loud for anything I do.

Super in a head cab + external cabs is one of my fantasies. I think you can get the head boxes at Mojo Music.

[Jeffrec]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

I had a Pre-CBS twin years ago, and while it was a great amp overall, it was too clean for my tastes. Real loud and full of head room. With a pedal in front of it, it's fine. It's also real heavy to lug around. The Super is a better choice IMO

[jeremy]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

i like them both for different things. loud and clean is what the twin does best. the super gets a great juicy overdrive if you crank it up (especially with alnico speakers) but its really damn loud. if i can only have one, id take the super. i have a '69 dual showman reverb (twin in a head), i pull two tubes and run an 8 ohm cab. it sounds terrific but its still super loud when it starts to break up

[NegativeEase]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

are you talking about a Super Reverb 4x10? A vintage Super Reverb is traditionally known as the "King of Clean" -even cleaner than a Twin Reverb.

both are super clean, both are absolute shoulder killers, both are very loud, with the 85W Twin being unreal load -loader than a 100w Marshall typically. The Twin sounds best at 6 which is way too loud at home. The Super Reverb is punchier with out the characteristic big bottom of a Twin.

I don't prefer either -I prefer a Deluxe Reverb or Vibrolux -as I like some grit and versatility.

If super clean is your thing, I'd do a Roland Jazz Chorus personally.

If a great fender sound is your thing, I wouldn't do such a big heavy unit -I'd do a 1x12 or 2x10 -unless you get wheels.

[FuseG4]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

I could not get away with either if I wanted even a hint of breakup
the deluxe reverb platform is the one I went with. I can get it to have a little grit but it's still too loud to do that on a regular basis. I've had the reissue and the supersonic 22 and love the supersonic love my Princeton reverb too
I've only played a super a couple times but have played more twins and I thought the twin had a nice fullness and girth to the cleans. I would not mind owning one but they are heavy and the bass response is really good and bass is what goes right through walls making the amp seem even louder to your neighbors lol
indeed for cleans I oscillate between SS22 and PR cuz that's what I can play comfortably in my room and take to friends houses when I can. I still don't get to crank either all that often. The pr is still ear protection loud if you're right next to it

[Boogie Bill]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

A more "fair" comparison of Fender BF amps would be the 410 Super Reverb versus the 212 Pro Reverb. Both have the same power, but the SR has the MID control in the VIBRATO channel. The Vibrolux Reverb has slightly less power in a 210 combo. A clean Vibrolux probably commands the highest price in the vintage market.

Then again you have the Band Master rig, with its head and 212 cab, but no reverb...also 2x6L6. Its big brother is the 85-watt Showman head, and little brother...the Tremolux, clocks in at 35-watts with a 210 cab. The Tremolux is one of the best blues club amps I've ever used, and I deeply regret selling mine. And a lot of guys love rocking the bare-bones Bassmans.

Of course back in the mid-'60s and well into the '70s, there wasn't all this emphasis on playing distorted. You wanted loud and clean. Indeed, Fender marketed the Champs, Princetons, and Deluxes as student or practice amps. A bunch of us went to see a friend who was also doing a single act and we gave him a bad time because he was using "only" a Deluxe Reverb. His amp had been stolen, and the DR was all he could afford. He couldn't wait to get a bigger, cleaner amp, and I think he wound up with an Ampeg VT-22. (A BEAST!)

Of the single acts I knew in the '70s, I'd say at least 90% were using minimum 100-watt tube and SS amps...Twins, Ampeg, SUNN, Kustom, Acoustic, Music Man, et.al. And that's what the bands were using too. I remember the guitarist in one of my favorite bands used a Music Man 210HD 130, and thinking how cool it was to have all that clean power in a small package.

There were a few kids in my high school (Class of 1968) who had Fender SRs, and a few who had the top-line Silvertones, too. The SRs, and Fender amps in general, were cream-of-the-crop. I always like their tones, but never bought a Super Reverb. As mentioned before, they are really awkward to carry and difficult to fit in a car. A Twin or Pro also weigh a ton but are easier to manage. And the 10"s in a SR are so much quicker than the 12"s; with certain guitars they can be overly bright. I prefer the 212 models.

After owning and playing various Fender, SUNN, Acoustic, Randall and Marshall amps, I found my dream amps in the Mark III, IV and V Mesas. The original Boogies were based on the BF design. They have the power and the clean tones I need. They sound good at lower volumes. The lower watt settings are perfect for practice and tiny clubs, or terrific crunch tones. With the full power setting and the EVM speakers of the combo and a Thiele cab it will hang with any Marshall stack, and the combo+Theile has a smaller footprint than a Twin Reverb. And a Boogie sings like no other amp. To me, they are the best of all worlds.

But there is no denying the brilliance of the BF Fender amps. Fifty-plus years later they are still filling studios and stages around the world. Hard to argue with success.

Bill

[JB_From_Hell]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

I’ve spent the last few years with a ‘73 SF Super Reverb. I pulled V1 and swapped it for the phase inverter. It breaks up a little earlier and gets gnarlier at a slightly more sane volume. However, I still use a variety of dirt pedals with it. Wouldn’t trade it for anything.

[Mincer]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

I'd say that a Pro Reverb has the best of both a Twin and a Super. A 68-69 Pro Reverb is just about as perfect as a Fender amp can be.

[FuseG4]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

When will fender do a pro reverb reissue?
Didn't they have a "pro tube series" amp they called pro reverb?
Not that I could afford one right now if they decided to reissue it. But it seems like a no brainier. Maybe they are waiting till sales slump, an ace up the sleeve amp design like that seems like it would pull them out.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

[Mincer]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

Well, even 1968-69 Pro Reverbs are around $1.3k, which would be close to the price of a reissue. It makes more sense to get a vintage one- people haven't caught on, yet.

[FuseG4]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

Well, even 1968-69 Pro Reverbs are around $1.3k, which would be close to the price of a reissue. It makes more sense to get a vintage one- people haven't caught on, yet.

Dang that's way better than I thought, I was scared to look thinking they'd be like most other vintage BF

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

[jeremy]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

the bf varieties are going for closer to $2k, but the early sf are basically the same amp

[JB_From_Hell]

Re: Super vs Twin reverb

There’s lots of SF hate. Try the amp before you write them off.