Baer Amplification; Part 2!!

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by willsellout

I'm not so much put off by the brightness. To put things in perspective, one of my all time favorite cabs is the Eden D410XLT, which has a nice low mid bump that cuts through with a really nice top end. I don't get that same feeling from the Baers and I can't afford to take a risk considering the cost of shipping, when I'm unsure of what I'm hearing through both Ken and Addison's videos...

Originally Posted by kringle77

When compared to an eden xlt, I can see what you are saying. The eden is thicker in the low mids and maybe just more round, where as the baer sounds clearer but, alot less low mid bump. Deeper low end too.

+1. The Eden 410XT is going to thicker in the low mids and mids with an decent upper mid dip. The ML212 will be overall clearer and tighter. One thing to consider is that the ML212 will be a bit more chameleon like in it's ability to give you a wider variety of tones, via your EQ and technique, where the Eden is always going to have a pretty strong signature Eden tone that's harder to EQ into something else. The Eden also weighs quite a bit more. IMO, the Eden is a really great cab, so if you really dig that tone and don't mind the haul, then it's probably a great match for you.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by willsellout

Yup, that's what I'm hearing. The Baer's will be great for a lot of players, but I tend to err, on what many would say, the aggressive side of things.

I've actually described the Berg AE 10's as 'better 410/210 XLT's. A bit smoother and more even, but still that nice low mid push and that bit of top if the driver grit + the upper treble reach without a lot of sizzle.

I love my Bergs!

Really dig the ML also... Nice if you like a good dose of upper mids that sound warm, combined with a full, relatively even and extended low end.

[kringle77]

Yeah, the eden tone is bakes in pretty hard. Though, it's a great tone. I can see how the baer would be more "eq-able".

[willsellout]

Originally Posted by R Baer

+1. The Eden 410XT is going to thicker in the low mids and mids with an decent upper mid dip. The ML212 will be overall clearer and tighter. One thing to consider is that the ML212 will be a bit more chameleon like in it's ability to give you a wider variety of tones, via your EQ and technique, where the Eden is always going to have a pretty strong signature Eden tone that's harder to EQ into something else. The Eden also weighs quite a bit more. IMO, the Eden is a really great cab, so if you really dig that tone and don't mind the haul, then it's probably a great match for you.

I thought about the EQ ability of the ML212 and the Mesa Mpulse I use has a nice Semi-parametric EQ that could put me wherever I wanted, I'm sure. The 410 is definitely heavy at almost a hundred pounds. I'm keeping my options open at this point. I'm thankful this thread has been updated with videos, it's helped me out a ton. A picture is worth a thousand words and all that

[CTC564]

I came from SWR and Eden cabs and am more than happy with my pair of Baers but if I ever feel the need for 10's again I'll definitely be on a hunt for 2 of the diagonal mounted AE210 cabs

[chuck3]

Originally Posted by KJung

Hopefully this will work:

(Clips recorded at 'moderate gig volumes' about 30 degrees off axis, about 10 feet from cab with the Zoom Q3 digital recorder).

Clip 1: Nordstrand VP5 (modern voiced ash/maple 5 string passive P Bass with broken in Dunlop Nickel Wounds) through the Streamliner (representative of the 'fat and tubey side of amp voicings) and the Markbass F500 (representative of the more neutral SS side of amp voicings). I unfortunately didn't do a great job gain matching (I record these clips in real time with very little prep, so a bit rough sometimes), so don't overinterpret that difference in volume and fatness between the two heads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNxT9nRCNwI

Clip 2: Alleva-Coppolo LM5 (ash/maple 70's style J with single coils, broken in Hi Beams) with the F500. Killer combination (just like the Streamliner with the P).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOHr9ulfP30

Clip 3: A-C again with the F500, this time comparing the ML112 to the Berg AE210, to give the listener a feel for the difference between the mid driver versus a very well executed but more traditional tweeter loaded cab.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJOeV2jTjIE

thanks for doing those, Ken!

[nostatic]

Thanks for the props. I agree with Ken's assessment on the ML112 being around the AE210 (as you can hear on his vids). If someone wants a big low-mid push, the ML112 doesn't really have that baked in. Compared to the AE210, I think the ML112 is a bit more full in the lows, has a similar upper mid cut, but it is a bit sweeter than the Berg and there is no upper treble hiss with the Baer. I found that the AE210 (I had the original) could get a bit edgy and ganky depending on the bass and the day I was having. The ML112 has the cut I like but doesn't slide as easily into gank as the Berg.

As for low mids, one reason I like the ML112 is that it doesn't have a big low mid hump like a lot of 112 cabs I've played. The response is nice and even down to the lowest frequencies, and a single cab supports those lows better than most every 112 I've played, and better than the AE210 imho.

For reference, an outdoor gig, no FOH, single ML112.

http://nostatic.com/mp3/13jan13/josie.mp3 (forgive the clams and odd solo - AM gigs are rough )

And indoors, really tight space:

http://nostatic.com/mp3/17jan13/sunshine.mp3

[willsellout]

Great playing. Sound is great.

[Addison]

Originally Posted by BuffaloBob4343

True. Also, Addison had his Streamliner really over driven with the drive boost button engaged, so that will give it some extra grit and grind that is good if you want that, but is something that the Baer will reproduce in droves no doubt.

I have the Gain button engaged to maximize volume and get the most out of the EQ but my gain control is only at 10:30...

My signal is really clean, actually... It's hot and thumps... but not what I would consider overdriven at all.

[chuck3]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Thanks for the props. I agree with Ken's assessment on the ML112 being around the AE210 (as you can hear on his vids). If someone wants a big low-mid push, the ML112 doesn't really have that baked in. Compared to the AE210, I think the ML112 is a bit more full in the lows, has a similar upper mid cut, but it is a bit sweeter than the Berg and there is no upper treble hiss with the Baer. I found that the AE210 (I had the original) could get a bit edgy and ganky depending on the bass and the day I was having. The ML112 has the cut I like but doesn't slide as easily into gank as the Berg.

As for low mids, one reason I like the ML112 is that it doesn't have a big low mid hump like a lot of 112 cabs I've played. The response is nice and even down to the lowest frequencies, and a single cab supports those lows better than most every 112 I've played, and better than the AE210 imho.

For reference, an outdoor gig, no FOH, single ML112.

http://nostatic.com/mp3/13jan13/josie.mp3 (forgive the clams and odd solo - AM gigs are rough )

And indoors, really tight space:

http://nostatic.com/mp3/17jan13/sunshine.mp3

nice! so, it seems like you really like the Baer cabs, but the Streamliner not so much? What head were you using on those recordings? Plus, any reason not to like the ML212? I have smaller cabs for smaller gigs but I'd like one cab, and not a fridge, for larger gigs. I'd have FOH support for those as well.

also ... this came to mind the minute I heard "Josie," but is your handle a reference to "FM"? I am a huge Dan fan. The bands I'm in don't do much of their stuff but it's what I like to listen to more than just about anything.

[nostatic]

I've owned most every micro over the past two years. I had the S900 but didn't really dig the wooly low mids. Both of those recordings are a Monique tube preamp into the power amp section of a Puma 900. I've got Puma 500 and 900 heads that are great. I use the Monique for most gigs, but if I want to travel light or am in a really tight space I just use the Puma and don't give up much in the way of tone.

Shot from the outdoor venue (both cabs, no Monique):



This is the jazz setup:



I'm not a 212 guy - I am firmly in the modular camp. I have a pair of ML112s, but for most gigs I only use one. I play in 5 different bands (one of them is a Steely Dan tribute - obviously not the trio in that recording though, that's a different band), do a fair amount of jazz, and often am in ridiculously tight stage/playing areas. So small footprint with big sound is really important to me. The ML112 covers gigs better than any other single 12 cab I've owned (which is a few), and to my ear also does better than a 210 cab. The pair of ML112s with the Puma head will peel paint off the walls.

For guys who are playing a lot of louder gigs, I can see the 212 being a good solution. For me though, even the ML112 can be overkill in certain rooms. Plus I like the vertical stack of the pair of ML112s - puts the drivers up closer to my ears so I can hear in dense mixes. I can't always count on good FOH and monitors.

nostatic is borrowed from FM. Been my online moniker for way over a decade.

[BuffaloBob4343]

Originally Posted by Addison

I have the Gain button engaged to maximize volume and get the most out of the EQ but my gain control is only at 10:30...

My signal is really clean, actually... It's hot and thumps... but not what I would consider overdriven at all.

Overdriven may have been a bad choice of words, but the tube drive is pretty high if you have the button in and you're in the 10:30 to noon range., at least on mine. YMMV.

My point wasn't to say anything bad about the setting at all, only that yes, the tube drive is pretty hot there with that setting, and certainly one could if one wanted to, back off the tube drive and get a less tube driven and an even cleaner sound.

I tend to use mine at noon with no gain button, and use the preamp volume to bump up the signal volume, but it's all good brother! Love the Streamer! So many sounds in that dang thing.

[chuck3]

Thanks for the info. I get the "ridiculously tight spaces" part and have that often too, and I see the logic of the modular approach as well, that's what I do to some extent as it is. Hard for me to see springing for the two 112s though when I've got stuff already that will cover the smaller venues. Tough call. I will look at it again.

Love that "dove cage" Monique. I've only recently caught on to the Monique stuff through TB. I use an EBS ValveDrive that is similar in concept but not in execution.

[BuffaloBob4343]

Originally Posted by chuck3

nice!
also ... this came to mind the minute I heard "Josie," but is your handle a reference to "FM"? I am a huge Dan fan. The bands I'm in don't do much of their stuff but it's what I like to listen to more than just about anything.

Oh Duuuhhhhh! I love the Dan, too but never made the connection! Nice!

[BuffaloBob4343]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I've owned most every micro over the past two years. I had the S900 but didn't really dig the wooly low mids. Both of those recordings are a Monique tube preamp into the power amp section of a Puma 900. I've got Puma 500 and 900 heads that are great. I use the Monique for most gigs, but if I want to travel light or am in a really tight space I just use the Puma and don't give up much in the way of tone.

I'm not a 212 guy - I am firmly in the modular camp. I have a pair of ML112s, but for most gigs I only use one. I play in 5 different bands (one of them is a Steely Dan tribute - obviously not the trio in that recording though, that's a different band), do a fair amount of jazz, and often am in ridiculously tight stage/playing areas. So small footprint with big sound is really important to me. The ML112 covers gigs better than any other single 12 cab I've owned (which is a few), and to my ear also does better than a 210 cab. The pair of ML112s with the Puma head will peel paint off the walls.

For guys who are playing a lot of louder gigs, I can see the 212 being a good solution. For me though, even the ML112 can be overkill in certain rooms. Plus I like the vertical stack of the pair of ML112s - puts the drivers up closer to my ears so I can hear in dense mixes. I can't always count on good FOH and monitors.

nostatic is borrowed from FM. Been my online moniker for way over a decade.

Really enjoy listening to your clips. Thanks as always for sharing. I think the crowd was with you on Sunshine and rightfully so!

I totally get where your coming from. I am a rocker. Not heavy metal stuff, but I do venture out in the harder rock direction with stuff like 3 Doors Down, Shinedown. Mainly stuff like Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters, to classic rock. I hardly get to the Jazz end of the spectrum. So for me, the low mid wool of the Streamliner just works, and so would a Baer 212 i think. Dingwall Pups are very P-Bass centric, so I really think that combo would provide a nice complement to my Uber 410. This especially true in view of Ken's and Addison's work on the clips with the Streamliner. Ken's P-Bass into the Streamer into the 112 is pretty much where I live. And extrapolating that to the likely characteristics of the ML212, I think I am going to have to try it out!

BTW, the Fodera sounds awesome, too! I would be scared to try one, for fear I would really fall in love. That's all I need is another upscale bass maker in my life LOL!

[B String]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I've owned most every micro over the past two years. I had the S900 but didn't really dig the wooly low mids. Both of those recordings are a Monique tube preamp into the power amp section of a Puma 900. I've got Puma 500 and 900 heads that are great. I use the Monique for most gigs, but if I want to travel light or am in a really tight space I just use the Puma and don't give up much in the way of tone.

Do the Puma's give you enough eq control to make you happy as opposed to the other "micro" heads you've tried? Is there
much of a difference between the 500 and 900, other than output? I've been on the fence about a Puma 500 or 900 for a while now. I'm mostly using a Markbass F500 now. I'm told the Puma 500 might have more headroom then the F500.

I agree with you on the differences between the AE210 and the ML112. Good assessment.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by B String

Do the Puma's give you enough eq control to make you happy as opposed to the other "micro" heads you've tried? Is there
much of a difference between the 500 and 900, other than output? I've been on the fence about a Puma 500 or 900 for a while now. I'm mostly using a Markbass F500 now. I'm told the Puma 500 might have more headroom then the F500.

I agree with you on the differences between the AE210 and the ML112. Good assessment.

I frankly don't hear much difference between the 500 and 900. I gigged the 500 exclusively for the first month or so and only recently have taken the 900 out. I never noticed the 500 breathing hard.

I find the eq to be spot on. Low can deal with filling out the low end if need be or cutting to deal with a boomy room. Low mids give some fatness, high mids give some cut. Treble I never touch. Truth be told I run the amp flat almost all the time. THe taste knob actually is the one I'll mess with. At noon the amp has a nice clear edge, and rolling CW moves towards a bit more warm/vintage side of things.

I have never missed having a parametric eq with the Puma head, nor do I miss it with Monique. That said I do run active basses with 2 or 3-band eq, though I don't eq them very radically either. On the Rob Allen I sometimes cut some bass depending on the room, with the Lull I add a bit of bass. With the Foderas I run them fairly flat on the neck pup, dial in some bass on the bridge pup.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by BuffaloBob4343

Really enjoy listening to your clips. Thanks as always for sharing. I think the crowd was with you on Sunshine and rightfully so!

I totally get where your coming from. I am a rocker. Not heavy metal stuff, but I do venture out in the harder rock direction with stuff like 3 Doors Down, Shinedown. Mainly stuff like Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters, to classic rock. I hardly get to the Jazz end of the spectrum. So for me, the low mid wool of the Streamliner just works, and so would a Baer 212 i think. Dingwall Pups are very P-Bass centric, so I really think that combo would provide a nice complement to my Uber 410. This especially true in view of Ken's and Addison's work on the clips with the Streamliner. Ken's P-Bass into the Streamer into the 112 is pretty much where I live. And extrapolating that to the likely characteristics of the ML212, I think I am going to have to try it out!

BTW, the Fodera sounds awesome, too! I would be scared to try one, for fear I would really fall in love. That's all I need is another upscale bass maker in my life LOL!

Yeah, that was a fun night. Crowd was totally into the straightahead jazz, and digging the funk as well.

I held off trying a Fodera for many years. I finally tried the Yin Yang Standard - went into the store wanting to hate it. I bought it the next day. That was my gateway drug. I now have a Yin Yang Deluxe that is just spectacular (chambered walnut body, ebony fingerboard, PJ setup) and a Matt Garrison Std (5 string, E-C). I liked that one so much I ordered a pair of fraternal twins that will be done early summer. 5-string, 34" scale, 24-fret neck-through Monarchs, strung E-C with drop D tuner, one fretted, one fretless. Them I'm done.

[3rdcurve]

So now all we(I) need is a head to head comparo -STM900/Pbass with the ML112 and ML115. One of these cabs will be my next purchase.

[B String]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I frankly don't hear much difference between the 500 and 900. I gigged the 500 exclusively for the first month or so and only recently have taken the 900 out. I never noticed the 500 breathing hard.

I find the eq to be spot on. Low can deal with filling out the low end if need be or cutting to deal with a boomy room. Low mids give some fatness, high mids give some cut. Treble I never touch. Truth be told I run the amp flat almost all the time. THe taste knob actually is the one I'll mess with. At noon the amp has a nice clear edge, and rolling CW moves towards a bit more warm/vintage side of things.

I have never missed having a parametric eq with the Puma head, nor do I miss it with Monique. That said I do run active basses with 2 or 3-band eq, though I don't eq them very radically either. On the Rob Allen I sometimes cut some bass depending on the room, with the Lull I add a bit of bass. With the Foderas I run them fairly flat on the neck pup, dial in some bass on the bridge pup.

Thank you. DAMN! Now I really want one!