Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jonathan Johnson]

I must confess. I have long had a perception of Peavey products as substandard. (This post is for you, John Roberts.)

The initial perception of Peavey as a not-quality product was formed in the 1980's in high school, listening to the school's portable sound system (composed of Peavey products) during assemblies. In the typical scenario, it hissed like a snake, it seemed like there was a harshness to the sound, and feedback was a constant problem. Many more times, many more systems with Peavey products (admittedly run by others) exhibited the same qualities.

Years later, I purchased some inexpensive Peavey microphones. I was unimpressed with the poor handling isolation (although it was better than the *cough*Radio Shack*cough* microphones I tried), and the response curve left voices muddy. This just contributed to my dissatisfaction with Peavey.

In more recent years, I've had the distinct displeasure of having to use a Peavey powered mixer/amp that had clearly been abused (in a high-school setting).

I am now second-guessing my preconceived notions. While the microphone certainly didn't meet my expectations, in retrospect, I can not justly label Peavey as "poor quality" based solely on my previous experiences. In all fairness to Peavey (and this forum's own John Roberts), those noisy systems of my youth were most likely being run by inexperienced people who did not understand basic sound system operation. (Gain structure, mic selection, microphone technique, etc.) It didn't help Peavey's cause that their name was splayed across the mains of a squealing noise generator for all to see.

Now, I know that Peavey isn't typically used in A-list productions, but is it really fair for me to discount it at every turn? I don't have any hands-on experience with current crop of Peavey products, so I can't say one way or the other whether it's decent stuff or not. I do think that other "value added" competitors in the marketplace (Mackie, Behringer, etc.) have driven Peavey to improve the sound quality of their products, so there is a benefit there. But how is the functionality and reliability?

I guess my whole point of this is that we form opinions of various product lines based on our experiences with them, but sometimes those opinions are unjustified because that experience was incomplete. Further, some manufacturers do improve their product lines over the years, but our negative opinions remain the same. Let's be careful when we judge things based on how other people use them, or when we don't have full understanding.

[g'bye, Dick Rees]

JJ....

I think the thread is phrased redundantly.  Preconceptions are by definition "unjustified" as justification implies some direct experience while "preconception" implies an opinion derived prior to direct experience.  That said.....
 
I think that a lot of the carping on product quality falls under the heading of "it's a poor workman that blames his tools". 

Consider the niche that the product line occupies.  Inexperienced users with ambitious expectations.  What would one expect?  Equipment that takes a beating in trying to fulfill unrealistic expectations.

My experience with Peavey (and some other lines) is this:

Takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

Once a person has enough experience to spec the proper gear for the task, Peavey or any other brand can be very workable.

On the topic of brand preference, I find that outfits like Sony have disappointed me by selling less than serviceable lines at the lower priced end of the scale and relying on their reputation to foist it off on the unwary consumer.  Their low end stuff absolutely stinks, while their professional line still has some merit, although I see less value in their stuff every year.

So I'd really point to the source of the complaints in considering the product rep.

[John Roberts {JR}]

The difference between brand perception and reality is a well inspected topic, so I won't flog this more than usual for me. I detect some residual biases, still remaining left to skewer. None of us would care to be measured by our knowledge and performance level of several decades ago.

I find the suggestion that Mackie and heaven forbid Behringer influenced Peavey to improve sound quality is so wrong to be insulting. If anything they influenced Peavey to get cheaper by manufacturing in China. While my hands-on experience is more than 10 years old, I bench tested competitor's units and there was not any significant performance difference between most similar products, and in some cases Peavey was superior. I recall one manufacturer who had to withdraw a magazine ad that erroneously made a claim that their (GEQ) product's specs were better (S/N), they weren't. They apparently believed their own BS but the truth did not support their published claim. As I recall that ad ran one time without a formal retraction so I expect everyone who read it to believe it.

There is a huge "perceived" difference in the marketplace due to advertising and brand management. People wouldn't spend the millions of dollars on it if it didn't work, and Mackie introduced consumer style advertising to the MI market. Behringer pretty much copied Mackie lock stock and advertising in several product categories. 

My apologies if this it too much truth for anyone.. and as usual opinions vary, but I was in those trenches.

JR

PS In a piece of clever marketing, Mackie has just announced their own private label opamp (actually made by JRC). At Peavey we had several house numbered parts but we just gave them 8 digit MRPS numbers. I recall approving the sale of a few tubes of one of these selected opamps to a very well known Sound Company, famous for rolling their own modified sound gear. They couldn't buy our special part direct from the vendor without our permission, and with it they would need to buy thousands at a time, so I approved a sale through our service dept. I could drop their surely impressive name but you probably wouldn't believe me if i did.  The performance of the entire category has improved over recent decades due to advances in IC and component technology, that all manufacturers have taken advantage of.

This opamp with the little Mackie stickman branded on it, is just another merchandising gimmick to create a distinction where one doesn't really exist. A hook, or story for the sales team to repeat. As I've stated before one of my frustrations while at Peavey was the faint attempts to manage brand perception.  I could tell lots more stories but this is ancient history that I don't enjoy reliving blow by blow. I had to listen to the poop for 15 years and maintain my composure back then, now I don't.

[Patrick Tracy]

Peavey gear is bought by a lot of people who don't know how to operate and maintain it. It lasts through the abuse long enough to get blamed for bad sound by generations of listeners.

I've recently had the pleasure of using an old Peavey box mixer and PA mains with the silver strips down either side of the front. A little eq on the mixer and it sounds fine. I'll happily use Peavey if it's in proper working order and enough rig for the gig.

[Bob Leonard]

I go back to a time when plenty of well known bands put Peavey, Kustom, Traynor, Shure, Marshall, Bogan, and yes, home made systems on stage. The response to the name had nothing to do with with the name itself. It had plenty to do with the sound of the system in total. I remember plenty of very well known bands playing in the Boston area and using Peavey columns or amplifiers and sounding not just good, but very good.

In 1975 I came back from Vietnam and was stationed outside of Pensecola, FL. I had a great band, plenty of time, petty officers pay, and I was single. We played everywhere we could, large hall or small all over the pan handle and 3 other states. We used Shure mics, 2 monitors, 6 Peavey columns and a very large Peavey box type mixer. It worked well, sounded great, and never let us down.

I don't remember the model mixer, maybe John does, but again, it had some pretty good horsepower, drove the shit out of those columns, and sounded just great.

I moved to JBL and EV after that with a smattering of Bag End in there along the road, but if someone told me I had only $1500 to buy a complete system it would be all Peavey. To use the name Behringer and Peavey in the same sentence shows little or no knowledge of Peavey and it's history.
 
John,
I found an old 1973 catalog. The mixer is below;


 

[Tim McCulloch]

Hi Jonathan-

In your long-about path you arrive at the conclusion that has been espoused here before - the "no Peavey, etc" stuff found in riders (even at the club level) has its roots in the user base and resulting outcomes.  While it was possible to make bad sound with "better" gear, Peavey made reasonably competent gear *affordable*, permitting greater numbers of inexperienced folks to make bad sound.

[Ivan Beaver]

I go back to a time when plenty of well known bands put Peavey, Kustom, Traynor, Shure, Marshall, Bogan, and yes, home made systems on stage. The response to the name had nothing to do with with the name itself. It had plenty to do with the sound of the system in total. I remember plenty of very well known bands playing in the Boston area and using Peavey columns or amplifiers and sounding not just good, but very good.

In 1975 I came back from Vietnam and was stationed outside of Pensecola, FL. I had a great band, plenty of time, petty officers pay, and I was single. We played everywhere we could, large hall or small all over the pan handle and 3 other states. We used Shure mics, 2 monitors, 6 Peavey columns and a very large Peavey box type mixer. It worked well, sounded great, and never let us down.

I don't remember the model mixer, maybe John does, but again, it had some pretty good horsepower, drove the shit out of those columns, and sounded just great.

I moved to JBL and EV after that with a smattering of Bag End in there along the road, but if someone told me I had only $1500 to buy a complete system it would be all Peavey. To use the name Behringer and Peavey in the same sentence shows little or no knowledge of Peavey and it's history.
 
John,
I found an old 1973 catalog. The mixer is below;

Check out "the basement" later today-you will LOVE my new "desk".

[Jim McKeveny]

30 years ago a neighbor, who knew I was "into sound", gave me a pair of Peavey 22 HF drivers (square magnet) that he found in the rubble of a nightclub demolition. Wrecking-ball demolition.

I was a Yamaha Pro & JBL man, so I dismissed them. (Not a real phase plug). Then I tried them, in wedges: Wow! they took abuse like nothing else and continued to work. They were engineered with efficiency and durability, and other 22's, 22A's, etc. found their way into boxes.

[John Roberts {JR}]

In 1975 I came back from Vietnam and was stationed outside of Pensecola, FL. I had a great band, plenty of time, petty officers pay, and I was single. We played everywhere we could, large hall or small all over the pan handle and 3 other states. We used Shure mics, 2 monitors, 6 Peavey columns and a very large Peavey box type mixer. It worked well, sounded great, and never let us down.

I don't remember the model mixer, maybe John does, but again, it had some pretty good horsepower, drove the shit out of those columns, and sounded just great.

I moved to JBL and EV after that with a smattering of Bag End in there along the road, but if someone told me I had only $1500 to buy a complete system it would be all Peavey. To use the name Behringer and Peavey in the same sentence shows little or no knowledge of Peavey and it's history.
 
John,
I found an old 1973 catalog. The mixer is below;

Thats about 20 years before my 15 year stint started, The PA series was before my time and if i recall my official PV history there was an even older "festival" series, with the big round fader knobs.

It is difficult to enjoy success at entry level and high end simultaneously. Hard to command two different market perceptions in one customer's mind. I am impressed by Yamaha's apparent ability to walk that fine line. Not only were inexperienced customers complicit in Peavey's bad reputation, but I suspect many small Peavey dealers were guilty of thinking that because they had a stack of sound gear in thier store inventory they could throw together a system and "put on a show"...    bzzt... We can imagine how that turns out.   

But like I have been saying, IMO Peavey did not work hard enough to change the perception. I recall watching Sony change from selling mostly cheap transistor radios to high end consumer gear (and pro). It can be done, but not if you don't try and work hard at it. While you also have to work to maintain it as Sony is learning.

JR

[Stu McDoniel]

I must confess. I have long had a perception of Peavey products as substandard. (This post is for you, John Roberts.)

The initial perception of Peavey as a not-quality product was formed in the 1980's in high school, listening to the school's portable sound system (composed of Peavey products) during assemblies. In the typical scenario, it hissed like a snake, it seemed like there was a harshness to the sound, and feedback was a constant problem. Many more times, many more systems with Peavey products (admittedly run by others) exhibited the same qualities.

Years later, I purchased some inexpensive Peavey microphones. I was unimpressed with the poor handling isolation (although it was better than the *cough*Radio Shack*cough* microphones I tried), and the response curve left voices muddy. This just contributed to my dissatisfaction with Peavey.

In more recent years, I've had the distinct displeasure of having to use a Peavey powered mixer/amp that had clearly been abused (in a high-school setting).

I am now second-guessing my preconceived notions. While the microphone certainly didn't meet my expectations, in retrospect, I can not justly label Peavey as "poor quality" based solely on my previous experiences. In all fairness to Peavey (and this forum's own John Roberts), those noisy systems of my youth were most likely being run by inexperienced people who did not understand basic sound system operation. (Gain structure, mic selection, microphone technique, etc.) It didn't help Peavey's cause that their name was splayed across the mains of a squealing noise generator for all to see.

Now, I know that Peavey isn't typically used in A-list productions, but is it really fair for me to discount it at every turn? I don't have any hands-on experience with current crop of Peavey products, so I can't say one way or the other whether it's decent stuff or not. I do think that other "value added" competitors in the marketplace (Mackie, Behringer, etc.) have driven Peavey to improve the sound quality of their products, so there is a benefit there. But how is the functionality and reliability?

I guess my whole point of this is that we form opinions of various product lines based on our experiences with them, but sometimes those opinions are unjustified because that experience was incomplete. Further, some manufacturers do improve their product lines over the years, but our negative opinions remain the same. Let's be careful when we judge things based on how other people use them, or when we don't have full understanding.

Old Peavey gear not so good.  New Peavey gear leaps and bounds in improvement.
Im talking pro sound gear and not Peavey guitar amps which were pretty kick @##.
I remember OC Anderson with Lonnie Brooks Band had a dual Peavey 12 amp and on a huge
sound system you would have thought you were listening to Duanne Allman.   Alot of of it is
really the player and as far as pro sound systems the new Peavey gear has come a long ways.
I do recall the old 400's and 800's were kind of like amps that didnt fail and just worked.
I will never dis Peavey.
God Bless Peavey for being American
I remember a music store that started up here in town in 79 im guessing at it was all Peavey Earth amp gear
I think it was originally Peavey Earth?  Not sure but I remember that.

[ProSoundWeb Community]