Baer Amplification Part 3 - Page 7

lo-freq · #**121** 01-31-2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spfairchild

Good to know. Thanks! I've yet to play through a fEARful at those kinds of volumes, myself. I wish it were easier to try out more of the boutique cabs out there, and in real world situations! (I do know that Baer does a 10 day trial, but still in research phase).

Anyone else an owner of an ML-212 and would like to weigh in here? I'm driving my cab with a Genz ShuttleMAX 9.2, and in general am not a huge fan of the currently-popular-with-virtuosos, mostly-mids heavy, bridge pickup-favored tone - I certainly like an aggressive tone with some high end definition and at least the ability to get low when I want to

A pair of ML115 should kill for your needs - as long as you get the high freqs you need; don't how you could answer that part without trying some version of the Baer ML's, though.

BuffaloBob4343 · #**122** 01-31-2013, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombowlus

I am absolutely positive that I could make any of them work well for my tone. My gut reaction tells me that two ML-112's are still my best ticket, but really, they are all a tweak or two away from nailing my personal tone preferences (which vary, depending on the band I am playing in and the music/mix, of course).

Well-stated counselor! LOL! Or should I say, Senator.

Joking aside, I get what you're saying. They aren't so different from one another that they can't be EQ'd to work for you.

I am thinking 212 for me. I like that they are a bit deeped than a stack of 112's, and probably a bit smoother up top, or at least preceptually based on the deeper lows.

BuffaloBob4343 · #**123** 01-31-2013, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck3

I've been vacillating between getting two of the 112s and one 212. From Tom's description, I think I'd like the 212 better tone-wise. I realize there are advantages and disadvantages to both in terms of logistics etc.

Same here Chuck.

BuffaloBob4343 · #**124** 01-31-2013, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

Most of the time, the 'single box' version is going to sound a bit bigger than the 2 x 112 version... not a huge difference, but the coupling, etc. can result in a smidge better performance.

With the Bae212 , you also get the advantage of optimal placement of the two mid drivers (one right on top of each other in a vertical array). That also is a relatively minor thing.

So, very minor tonal reasons to go with the 212.

The 212 will be a bit less expensive than two ML112's (just like with other companies who make a 212 version of their 112's). So, again, a bit of an advantage to the 212.

IMO, the biggest issue is how you feel about the schlep between on large relatively lightweight cab versus two smaller cabs, and also if you play enough small gigs where using one would be worth the extra money to go modular.

Tone-wise, minor deal, cost, shlep and 'modularity' would be the drivers of choice, and it should be pretty easy for a potential buyer to answer those questions.

For me, since the footprint is identical (i.e., the amount of space either version takes up on stage), I'd go with the 212 all the way. It is light enough that you could take it to almost any gig, and a single cab on a cart is a think of beauty for easy, quick set-up and ease of schlep on a small cart or with wheels on the bottom of the cab.

Well presented. I agree.

PS I am probably on a bit more of a budget, but I agree, 1 large (OK, 2 large with my Uber 410) and one small. I think I might try a 115 for the small.

greenrositti · #**125** 01-31-2013, 05:42 PM

Ymmv, but I can't imagine needing a deeper sound than my 2xML112 rig can give me, even on really loud outdoor hits. As gigging urban dweller, the modularity and tone combination is perfect--it's the silver bullet.

That said, I'd love to try all Rogers's cabs. I imagine they are all gorgeous executions of their respective types.

Saluki · #**126** 01-31-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenrositti

Ymmv, but I can't imagine needing a deeper sound than my 2xML112 rig can give me, even on really loud outdoor hits. As gigging urban dweller, the modularity and tone combination is perfect--it's the silver bullet.

That said, I'd love to try all Rogers's cabs. I imagine they are all gorgeous executions of their respective types.

You still using the Thunderfunk with Baers? I am a fan of the Thunderfunk through the ML112s, but I dig the Shuttlemax 9.2 as well. I am getting a Puma 900 on Monday and I hope it is the last stop for awhile.

tombowlus · #**127** 01-31-2013, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBob4343

I am thinking 212 for me. I like that they are a bit deeped than a stack of 112's, and probably a bit smoother up top, or at least preceptually based on the deeper lows.

Yup. You have it figured out.

greenrositti · #**128** 02-01-2013, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saluki

You still using the Thunderfunk with Baers? I am a fan of the Thunderfunk through the ML112s, but I dig the Shuttlemax 9.2 as well. I am getting a Puma 900 on Monday and I hope it is the last stop for awhile.

Yes-it's a total win. The ML cabs really take advantage of the slam of the TF, and vice Versa. I've got a Puma from the last generation that is a different flavor of great into the Baers. My old AG 500 also sounded really good through the Baers, but the I think the TF is really the bees knees.

I told Roger that and he said something like, "if you like the TF that much, wait till you hear the Valkyrie."

(Help!!!)

spiritbass · #**129** 02-01-2013, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenrositti

I told Roger that and he said something like, "if you like the TF that much, wait till you hear the Valkyrie."

(Help!!!)

That Roger - what a tease (and danger to bank account balance!)...

GRoberts · #**130** 02-01-2013, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saluki

You still using the Thunderfunk with Baers? I am a fan of the Thunderfunk through the ML112s, but I dig the Shuttlemax 9.2 as well. I am getting a Puma 900 on Monday and I hope it is the last stop for awhile.

Even though was much love for the TF 500 and 550, I had a 550 for a week and returned it within the 10 day trial period. Just didn't do a thing for me. I think amps have come a long way since then. Puma 900 gets great reviews. I expect it's going to be wonderful!

**Chef** · #**131** 02-01-2013, 09:22 AM

I flipped my original TF420 for a 550, and was hugely disappointed.
The 550 felt flat and sterile to me, after the 420; I had both the "gold chip" version and the "standard versions.

Right now, I'm --hugely-- happy with either the GK MBFusion, or, 1001RBII with the Baers.

Art Araya · #**132** 02-01-2013, 09:24 AM

Anyone AB a Baer ML112 against a Berg AE112? I'd be curious to know their tonal differences and their ability to push air.

nostatic · #**133** 02-01-2013, 09:41 AM

I had an AE112 for awhile. While I'm going from sonic memory, Baer will go louder and is sweeter in the upper mids. Berg has extended highs that the Baer doesn't (above 10K).

nordyboy · #**134** 02-01-2013, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nostatic

I had an AE112 for awhile. While I'm going from sonic memory, Baer will go louder and is sweeter in the upper mids. Berg has extended highs that the Baer doesn't (above 10K).

+1 I found the upper mids uncomfortable on the ae112, that is the only Berg that I have not liked.

Eublet · #**135** 02-01-2013, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Araya

Anyone AB a Baer ML112 against a Berg AE112? I'd be curious to know their tonal differences and their ability to push air.

I had an AE112...for 30 minutes. Bought one, tried to like it, put it back in the box, and put it up for sale.

I remember it feeling kind of "hollow" in a sense. It seemed more deeply extended than I like, but really it was the lack of any kind of low-mid or mid-mid push such that if seemed anemic to me. The top end was bright and fairly zingy also. While the upper-mid might be slightly similar, the ML112 is far more pleasant and full, with less pingy highs of course. The biggest difference will be the ML112's fuller bottom and more present mids. As far as moving air, the ML112 wins by a fair margin.

LeonD · #**136** 02-01-2013, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Araya

Anyone AB a Baer ML112 against a Berg AE112? I'd be curious to know their tonal differences and their ability to push air.

I had a chance to A/B one of the first ML112 against an AE112. My take was the ML112 had more low mids and a larger, bigger sound. The AE112 had a tighter low end and pronounced upper mids.

The listening conditions were not ideal however. It was at a local GTG a couple of years ago. And while we could A/B them side by side, there were about a dozen other bass rigs being played in the room at the same time.

For my playing style/tone goals, the AE112 works perfectly. That said, I could be completely happy playing the ML112.

greenrositti · #**137** 02-01-2013, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef

I flipped my original TF420 for a 550, and was hugely disappointed.
The 550 felt flat and sterile to me, after the 420; I had both the "gold chip" version and the "standard versions.

Right now, I'm --hugely-- happy with either the GK MBFusion, or, 1001RBII with the Baers.

Honestly, the only time I've played a TF is in my Baer rig. I have the 800 with gobs of headroom. Combine that with Rogers's secret sauce in the ML 112s, and I'm very happy.

I was in the Eden camp back in the 90s, so the TF feels familiar. We are lucky to have so many fantastic choices at our disposal these days.

Eublet · #**138** 02-01-2013, 12:22 PM

Yeah, going from Eden to TF makes a lot of sense. I used to think of the TF as really punchy and warm, and it is no doubt, but then the Markbass, Genz and Aguilar stuff made the TF seem a little more fuzzy by comparison. Honestly, they're all flavors of great.

greenrositti · #**139** 02-01-2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eublet

Yeah, going from Eden to TF makes a lot of sense. I used to think of the TF as really punchy and warm, and it is no doubt, but then the Markbass, Genz and Aguilar stuff made the TF seem a little more fuzzy by comparison. Honestly, they're all flavors of great.

+1 to the last bit

It's so funny we are all put together so differently. I hear the TF 800 as an amp I can take into any of the diverse situations I encounter better than any other I've owned. Happy as a clam for now...

So there's one vote for TF sounding sterile, one for "fuzzier," and one for flexible. But we all agree on the Baer's, right? ;-)

B String · #**140** 02-01-2013, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saluki

You still using the Thunderfunk with Baers? I am a fan of the Thunderfunk through the ML112s, but I dig the Shuttlemax 9.2 as well. I am getting a Puma 900 on Monday and I hope it is the last stop for awhile.

I WANT A PUMA 900!!! I think it will just rock with the ML112.