Baer Amplification; Part 2!!

[GRoberts]

I am like Jason in that I like a head to tame the overly bright high end zing of a JBass, that's one of the reasons I am enjoying the Orange TB500 so much. I compared it to the Tonehammer 500, direct A-B, and while I preferred the orange, the highs were more similar than different. Just a perfect balance of highs. So 'right' that I don't have the need to dial down the passive tone/treble on my bass nearly as much.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by tombowlus

-1 I know that Roger used the SA200 to help voice the Streamliner, but to my ears, they don't sound any more alike than any two other random "bass heads." I suppose their is some crossover in the tones you can get out of each of them, but I don't really feel like there is a strong similarity between the two.

A couple of owners of both hear that similarity. Of course, no two amps sound alike, but those two, from my non direct A/Bing are from the same mold (and also based on posts by some of the dual owners). Of course, if you push the SA200 power tubes to break up, that moves them quite far apart.

There are, I believe, A/B clips of those two posted by owners of both. Both fantastic amps!

I posted that similarity because the OP is one who owns both I believe and has posted about the similar tone profiles when run clean. Kind of a moot point now, since there are very few SA200's and they have been discontinued for years.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by GRoberts

I am like Jason in that I like a head to tame the overly bright high end zing of a JBass, that's one of the reasons I am enjoying the Orange TB500 so much. I compared it to the Tonehammer 500, direct A-B, and while I preferred the orange, the highs were more similar than different. Just a perfect balance of highs. So 'right' that I don't have the need to dial down the passive tone/treble on my bass nearly as much.

+1 in that if you dig more of what I call the '60's J' type tone, and/or use nickels or flats, the top end of the TH500 is VERY nice...fat and organic. Pure personal taste there.

[Eublet]

FWIW, I think the Aguilar stuff can sound very open ended up top, but consider that this is coming from someone who doesn't like that zingy J bass tone. With the Tone Hammer, little nudges go a long way on the EQ. To get the top end sounding a bit more open, scoop the mids VERY slightly (11 or 11:30) with the frequency center fully clockwise which is 1khz. Then boost treble to 1, and adjust the bass last to get the fullness you want. You'll only be dipping those upper mids by about -3dB if you do this, but the wider Q on that control also dips that lower treble region a little such that when you boost highs it'll help compensate for the attenuation over 5k and even things out. I can try to take a scope of this later today if I get some time, but it works well and flattens things out a little in the treble region, but with a slight contour in the middle. It's not drastic enough to be called "scooped" IMO though. Just a little shaping.

[Chef]

^^that makes sense.

If the amp sounds anything like the TH pdeal I fronted a power amp with; it's just not my thing.

I personally prefer the GK MBFusion....

all this stuff is so "ymmv;" we have so much good stuff to choose from!!!!

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Eublet

FWIW, I think the Aguilar stuff can sound very open ended up top, but consider that this is coming from someone who doesn't like that zingy J bass tone. With the Tone Hammer, little nudges go a long way on the EQ. To get the top end sounding a bit more open, scoop the mids VERY slightly (11 or 11:30) with the frequency center fully clockwise which is 1khz. Then boost treble to 1, and adjust the bass last to get the fullness you want. You'll only be dipping those upper mids by about -3dB if you do this, but the wider Q on that control also dips that lower treble region a little such that when you boost highs it'll help compensate for the attenuation over 5k and even things out. I can try to take a scope of this later today if I get some time, but it works well and flattens things out a little in the treble region, but with a slight contour in the middle. It's not drastic enough to be called "scooped" IMO though. Just a little shaping.

+1 in that you can surely extend the top end. However, if that is your thing, that just isn't what this head is about IMO and IME, and it just doesn't have that 'snap' up top. No Aguilar head has that from my experience... just not what the designers are going for.

It is kind of like trying to get a GK head to be 'fat and chewy' or whatever. Yes, you can tame the upper treble sizzle with the treble control, yes you can dial back the very bright, grindy upper mids, yes you can boost the low mids a bit.... but it just doesn't quite get there. The designer just has a different vibe in mind.

Hard IMO and IME to really totally change the inherent voice of a head with on-board EQ for the most part.

[Eublet]

Back to the Baer discussion, I've been pounding it a little more this morning with the TH500. The cabinet sounds fantastic to me. I've found ways to dial back the mids so that I like that bedroom tone very much also, so I'm pretty confident that I can go that direction on the gig if I have to to make it work.

Surprisingly with the TH500, the ML112 sounds VERY good when using some vintage tone and overdrive. I was running the settings below:

GAIN: 9 o'clock
Drive: 3
Mid level: 12:45'ish
Mid freq: 7
Treble: Noon
Bass: 1:30

This is very full sounding and the TH has a bit of an upper-mid peak around 2.5khz at this setting, so it starts sounding a little like an Ampeg kind of tone though the drive is different. With my bass, there was just some slight grit at this setting. Pushing harder into overdrive, the ML112 doesn't have any of that tweeter harshness at all. No need to reach around the back and adjust an L-pad attenuator, or mess with the treble knob. It just takes the overdrive in stride and makes it sound good.

That 12" inch driver is a sonic hammer. Very impressive the way it takes power and doesn't give up. Boosting lows ridiculously and pushing the TH just didn't even seem to make the ML break a sweat. I'd never run it with lows boosted like that, but it's fun to see what it can do. Very impressive little box. I hope it stays this way for a long time. I've had others that disappointed down the road after making good first impressions. This one is definitely unique, so it's hard to predict how thing will go. So far, I have zero complaints. I think a brushed silver grill would look KILLER on these boxes though...giving it a more vintage look that I would love. That's inconsequential to me though.

[nostatic]

I just got my first JJ bass in a long time. Generally not my thing - more of a PJ guy. I have to say that without sitting down and tweaking much, in my studio the Lull JJ (Fralin, Bart 2-band) sounds redonkulously good through the Puma/ML112 setup. I dial up a bit of bass on the neck pup, just a bit more 50/50, then a bit more on the bridge. The ML112 smooths out some of the top end stuff that usually drives me nuts on JJs, and I can feel the mids. Not sure how much is this particular bass and how much is the cab.

I'll gig the new bass along with the old basses and the ML112 again on Wed and Fri so I'll get another data point.

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by gillento

You mean Shape button ENGAGED, in case with the ABM this means that the Shape is actually off, right??

By Shape button Engaged, I mean that you have the shape circuit turned on. Always hated the way that made that button backwards.

Originally Posted by gillento

With my setup (active button not engaged) this means, the UV is permanently in the red, like clipping the input stage?.....

Wow, you must have one really hot bass. I used to run mine up around 2:00 most of the time. Providing the meter is working right, you are on the right track by using the VU meter and getting that gain up there a bit. I would think the ABM500 and ML112 would be a very good match up. Maybe you just need to roll off a little low end with the bass control. That SHAPE circuit adds a pretty substantial low end boost, if I remember right. I used to use it with their ABM410 cab which was fairly lean down low, so it worked good as a combination. Keep at it, I'm sure you will find the sweet spot. - ROGER

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by KJung

I greatly prefer the Markbass stuff, the TecAmp stuff, to a lesser extend the GK stuff, or the Genz Shuttle Max heads for that vibe. However, IMO and IME there.

I know the LMII is no longer the TB sweetheart of the month, but I really like the sound of that amp with the ML112's. The LMII's flat preamp and class A/B power section are more more in tune with my amp preferences. I've also heard an Eden WT400 with the ML112 and thought it was a fabulous match up. In fact, if I was looking for a small amp to go with the ML's, an Eden WT550 would probably do it for me.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by R Baer

I know the LMII is no longer the TB sweetheart of the month, but I really like the sound of that amp with the ML112's. The LMII's flat preamp and class A/B power section are more more in tune with my amp preferences. I've also heard an Eden WT400 with the ML112 and thought it was a fabulous match up. In fact, if I was looking for a small amp to go with the ML's, an Eden WT550 would probably do it for me.

Hard to not like the LMII/III, and as you point out, it is a wonderful combination of 'evenly and relatively widely voiced' but with nice warmth and character. IMO it will be a classic like the EdenWT400 back in the day. Both 'game changers' when they came out (actually the Eden WT300... the 400 was a 'custom factory upgrade at the beginning).

[nordyboy]

Originally Posted by R Baer

I know the LMII is no longer the TB sweetheart of the month, but I really like the sound of that amp with the ML112's. The LMII's flat preamp and class A/B power section are more more in tune with my amp preferences. I've also heard an Eden WT400 with the ML112 and thought it was a fabulous match up. In fact, if I was looking for a small amp to go with the ML's, an Eden WT550 would probably do it for me.

Roger, are you saying that out of all the micro heads, the lmiii/lmiii is your personal favorite with the ml112?

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by nordyboy

Roger, are you saying that out of all the micro heads, the lmiii/lmiii is your personal favorite with the ml112?

Well, I certainly haven't heard a lot of the micro's out there, so my opinion is quite limited. What I like about the LMII is that the preamp is flat and they use a class A/B power section, which is much more in line with my own design philosophy. The LMII has a tight, punchy low end and a warmer, sweeter top end. Just the way I like it. The ML112 has some upper end peaks, so the flat response and warm top end of the LMII makes for a good combination. My least favorite heads are those with a dramatic baked in EQ when all the knobs are flat. Just a design preference, but I would much rather start flat and dial in what I need, rather than starting with a curve I don't know and trying to alter that with unknown results. Plus, if you are dealing with a head with a big top end boost built in and are adding that to the top end peaks of the ML112 , it can be a bit much for some people. The Eden sounded glorious with the ML112's although I'm not sure many consider it a "micro" these days.

[nordyboy]

Originally Posted by R Baer

Well, I certainly haven't heard a lot of the micro's out there, so my opinion is quite limited. What I like about the LMII is that the preamp is flat and they use a class A/B power section, which is much more in line with my own design philosophy. The LMII has a tight, punchy low end and a warmer, sweeter top end. Just the way I like it. The ML112 has some upper end peaks, so the flat response and warm top end of the LMII makes for a good combination. My least favorite heads are those with a dramatic baked in EQ when all the knobs are flat. Just a design preference, but I would much rather start flat and dial in what I need, rather than starting with a curve I don't know and trying to alter that with unknown results. Plus, if you are dealing with a head with a big top end boost built in and are adding that to the top end peaks of the ML112 , it can be a bit much for some people. The Eden sounded glorious with the ML112's although I'm not sure many consider it a "micro" these days.

At 28lbs in weight I know that your new amp is no micro but I really am looking forward to trying it out. love the eq section and the looks are just sexy! Please make sure Mark gets one in stock!

[Eublet]

The LMII sounds killer! My one beef with it ultimately was the poorly fixed EQ in the low mids, and the extremely high treble center. It sounded great flat. One thing I liked is that it didn't fight with effect pedals because of that. I sold it ultimately because I couldn't fatten up low-mids around 200hz on a jazz bass which is often critical, nor could you dial in 2.5khz grind. If they'd put the F500 EQ section on the LMIII A/B design and add a mute switch, I'd order one tomorrow.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Eublet

The LMII sounds killer! My one beef with it ultimately was the poorly fixed EQ in the low mids, and the extremely high treble center. It sounded great flat. One thing I liked is that it didn't fight with effect pedals because of that. I sold it ultimately because I couldn't fatten up low-mids around 200hz on a jazz bass which is often critical, nor could you dial in 2.5khz grind. If they'd put the F500 EQ section on the LMIII A/B design and add a mute switch, I'd order one tomorrow.

+1 That is the reason I moved from the LMII to the F500. I was actually a bit shocked when I saw the F500 replacement, called the Big Bang... small (good), class D but with more warmth like the LMII/III (good), but no semiparametric mids, no mute (other than a cumbersome footswitch operated option).

[ACB0015]

That's nice to hear, I've got two WT330's.

Originally Posted by R Baer

I know the LMII is no longer the TB sweetheart of the month, but I really like the sound of that amp with the ML112's. The LMII's flat preamp and class A/B power section are more more in tune with my amp preferences. I've also heard an Eden WT400 with the ML112 and thought it was a fabulous match up. In fact, if I was looking for a small amp to go with the ML's, an Eden WT550 would probably do it for me.

[Eublet]

The ML112 definitely sounds better sitting horizontal rather than vertical to me. It's quite striking how different the tone is with this cab between the two. I suppose in a very boomy environment, standing it up vertical could be the answer, but the bottom and lows are so much better sounding with it flat on the ground.

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by Eublet

The ML112 definitely sounds better sitting horizontal rather than vertical to me. It's quite striking how different the tone is with this cab between the two. I suppose in a very boomy environment, standing it up vertical could be the answer, but the bottom and lows are so much better sounding with it flat on the ground.

That's pretty much why we placed feet on both sides of the cabs. Bigger stage, outdoors, or a room that seem to suck the low end out of your tone, you run them horizontal. Small stage, boomy room, or a platform stage that turns your tone to mush because you have too much floor coupling going on, you stand them vertically. Sometimes, a simple thing like adding four extra feet to the cab can add a lot of extra versatility. Sure it adds some cost to the cab, but in our price range, it's really not an issue.

[Chef]

I'll agree, there's a diff b/t horizontal and vertical.

I don't perceive that as a dramatic make or break difference though.

I run them vertical pretty much always, and really don't even feel the need to add low end back via eq....