Acoustic Control Corporation 220

I bought this amp new in 1978 and used it heavily (3 - 5 nights a week) for ten years. In 1978 it kicked some serious butt, but these days it's kind of wimpy.
I'm posting some comments here on Harmony Central about it in case a beginner or someone else interested in buying an old amp comes across one.
For most styles, it's pretty versatile, since it has (passive) three band EQ, AND a 5 Band Graphic EQ. In 1978 having a graphic EQ on your bass amp was considered "de reguer". Unlike the larger Acoustic 370/470 series, the 220 doesn't have enough power to move mountains.
The Acoustic "sound" is very direct, not very colored (unless you drive it into distortion), this amp does not have a "sound" like the Ampeg SVT or V4B.
The Acoustic 220 only has one channel, for bass that's pretty much enough. The Graphic EQ is footswitchable, but you have to use a proprietary (square plug, with multiple pins) footswitch with it. Since you pretty much need to use the EQ to get a decent tone from this head this isn't that big of a deal.
If you come across one of these THAT HAD a footswitch, MAKE SURE the EQ is engaged. Otherwise you can't use the graphic EQ, unless you hacked into the thing and figured out a way to select the EQ in/out switching.
There is no F/X loop per se, but there is a loop between the pre amp and power amp sections. You can patch an effect unit into this loop, or use the preamp, or power amp sections by themselves by using this loop. Pretty forward thinking for 1978...
No headphone jack, this was pretty much a rarity way back in 1978.
WISH LIST (keeping in mind the vintage of the amp)
1. Active EQ - You can only add EQ with this head, not subtract it, UNLESS you use the Graphic EQ. Having an active EQ section with cut and boost would have been nice.
2. MORE POWER - These days, 300 watts is kind of the norm, and this amp, although rated at 160 watts only puts out 160 AT 2 OHMS.
The more normally used 4 ohm output is 125 watts at 4 OHMS.
ALSO - The rated power is AT 5% DISTORTION!!! Yeah that's right, 5%. Since most amps these days are rated at .05% or so, this thing gets furry long before you hit the rated power. 3. SMALLER SIZE - In 1978 having a big amp was cool, but this thing is WAY too wide to fit on a rack and not look stupid, and about 6" too wide to fit on top of a contemporary (23" wide) bass cabinet.
When I took the cover off the chassis, I noticed there was a ton of empty space inside. Now part of this was to accomodate the fact that the power transistors, while mounted on a small heat sink have NO Venting to the outside air, they still could have made the head a little narrower and had enough air space.
Things I never used - the Bright Switch. - WAY TOO BRIGHT and adds a ton of hiss. I guess this switch was designed for use with Fender Precisions or something. Since I used Rickenbackers a lot with this amp, the bright switch was just overkill.
POWER BOOST SWITCH - The purpose of this seemed to be to directly proceed into clipping with having to bother to turn up much.
I guess if you were going for a mondo distorted sound (think Cream with Jack Bruce style) it would be useful, but I found I got more power with less distortion just by turning the volume up.
If you played this amp with the power boost switch in, and turned it up about half way, your speaker life would probably be measured in minutes since the clipping would quickly fry the voice coil.
I used this amp for ten years, driving two homemade 1 x 15" bass cabs loaded with (K130's for the first four years) JBL E-140's. It was pretty loud then, but had a hard time competing with dual Marshall 100 watt stacks. I used to blow a JBL about once a year or so, because I was overheating the voice coils with clipping from the amp.
In the amp's defense, it never shut down, blew a fuse or anything. It just clipped a lot, which eventually would fry the speakers.
I was lucky because with the JBL 5 year warranty, I never had to pay for a recone...
For modern, relatively

I used the amp mainly with Rickenbacker basses (a 4001 for about 6 years, then a 4003). I also used it with a Charvel "Star" bass (P/J pickup config, and with a Kramer Aluminum neck 8 string).
It was a great amp for rock, although a little low on power. Keep in mind I played back then (late 70's/early to mid 80's) in bands with maniac guitar players with 100 watt Marshall stacks who "just had to get their tone by turning it up to 11", so for a more realistic volume it would work well.
It puts out a fair amount of hiss, but not too bad for being so old. It almost NEVER HUMMED, something I find much more annoying than hiss. I guess the power supply was well shielded.
You can get a wide variety of sounds, depending on the bass and the EQ settings - In particular this amp does a bright sound very well, it does not sound tinny when you crank the highs.
The distortion can be kind of cool - I've been meaning to use this amp on a recording, in order to capture a little of that "Geddy Lee" growl in addition to the DI sound. The distorted tone is not a real fat, round sound like with a tube amp of course, but it farts out pretty nicely, it doesn't sound like it's ready to blow.
Again like I said, I abused this amp into clipping for ten years, and it never even blew a fuse...
The sound is more 70's retro though - I go for a loud hi-fi sound these days, so I don't like the Acoustic 220 that much, but for the right kind of band it could work well.

THE MOST RELIABLE PIECE OF GEAR I'VE EVER OWNED.
This thing traveled all up and down the east coast, was dropped, took abuse at practice and gigs (imagine 6 hour practices and gigs where we would play 4 sets all the time), it never even blew a fuse.
One time, at practice I was played and the head vibrated off the top of my bass stack (about 5 1/2 high) ONTO A CONCRETE FLOOR!
The only reason I noticed was that the sound got kind of muffled because the falling head, plugged into the cabs, took the first cab with it onto the concrete. The sound got kind of muffled and I looked around and went OH SH*********. Shut it off, picked everything back up and fired it up, it worked fine. This was when the amp was 3 years old, and it's still working 17 years later.
THE ONLY thing that ever went wrong with this amp was that after it had sat for about 6 years, I pulled it out once to see how it sounded.
I plugged it in and the power came right on, the power switch was not working.
I pulled the chassis out of the cabinet, and found a capacitor across the power switch that had one solder joint broken. I resoldered this and the switch worked fine.
It's funny, but this was the first (and only) time I ever saw the inside of the amp.
You can't beat an Old Acoustic for reliablity - they are just the best

I can't say because I never needed their support.
When I bought the amp (for $330), they had an offer to extend the one year warranty to a lifetime for another $70.
I didn't take them up on it because:
1. I didn't think I would have the amp 20 years later
2. I knew it would be reliable
Acoustic went out of business in the mid 80's, so it looks like I made the right choice. Even if something had gone wrong, the company wouldn't be around to honor the "Lifetime" warranty...

I've been playing for a while (how else could I have bought a new amp in 1978!) and after using this amp for ten years, I graduated to a preamp/power amps setup with the same cabs.
These days I run a pretty large, powerful (1100 watts) biamped rig that sounds killer - the old Acoustic just can't compete with it.
I still enjoy pulling it out though, I use it a lot for just playing/practicing by myself, or messing around. It sounds pretty good actually, and would certainly do better than a 100 watt Crate or Peavey practice amp.
If it were lost or stolen, I think I would get another, just for nostalgia sake. The Acoustic 220 was my first piece of PRO gear, and just like you always remember the first "lay", I have a fondness for this amp because of all the abuse it took and never let me down.
I don't really hate anything about it, more power would have been nice, but hey back then (1978) I thought the power was absolutely crushing - most people that heard this amp agreed that it was pretty loud.
Compared to the amp it replaced (a 50 watt Kustom combo, in black tuck and roll splendor) this amp sounded huge - I was in heaven with it and a new Rickenbacker and two 15" JBL's.
One thing I like about it is the styling. Acoustic had this classy paint scheme (Kind of light blue/dark blue, and white) that still looks good today - you can tell this is an old amp, but it's not embarrasing to look at.
Like I said, for a beginner looking for a fairly cheap, AND RELIABLE head, I highly recommend the Acoustic 220. Also, if you want a piece of Acoustic history, and don't want to pay the high tariff that the bigger 360/370/470 heads command, the 220 is a good bet. Just don't plan on using it as your only amp in a high volume situation.
I compared it to some comtemporary heads (1978ish) made by Peavey nd Road (remember those) and the Acoustic kicked their butts. In those days, there were not really very many choices in bass amps, and unless you had the fundage for an SVT setup, you generally got an Acoustic.
The 220 was a budget model, and a little low on power, but compared to other "budget" amps, it was much better.
ONE LAST THING -
Shortly after the 220 came out, Acoustic came out with another variation, called the 120.
DON'T BOTHER WITH ONE OF THESE!!!!
They are really wimpy, and they just don't have the same bottom end. They are rated at 125 watts at 2 Ohms, but at 4 ohms, I think they are more like 80 watts.
I had a friend in the early 80's who wanted to replicate my rig, because he like the sound of it so much.
He decided to save a few bucks by buying the 120 head, and then bought my old JBL K130's (this was when I switched to the E-140's).
After he built his cabs, and loaded my old speakers, he was totally disappointed in his sound.
He brought his rig by practice, and we A/B'd them, including swapping speaker cabs.
He was bitching about the speakers not sounding right, but quickly realized it was the head. His head sounded totally wimpy compared to mine, running the same speakers.
I think he saved maybe $50/$60 and was sorry that he didn't spend the extra money.
In this case, the extra watts were worth the money...
I'm trying to reign in the nostalgia here, chances are something like a Hartke combo, or SWR Workingman combo will sound better than the Old Acoustic 220. If you find one in decent shape for $100 - $150 though you can't go wrong, I recommend it on reliablity alone.
RATING (in 1978 terms) 8
RATING (in 1998 terms) 5
Being truthful, sometimes the "good old days" turn out to not be quite that good. My 220 has given my a lot of good service and good memories though, so I give it an 8 for "old times sake"