carvin BX 250 vs GK MB 200

[Billy K]

Anyone have info or feedback on these 2 amp heads they both are small in size and that is what I am looking for. The Carvin is 50 bucks more, Not a deal breaker if it is all that and more next to the GK.So I need help picking one or the other.Pro or con??

[fuzzy beard]

Bump i am interested!

[Eric Moesle]

The form factor of the GK is so much smaller it really wins this one hands down.

Also, it is widely respected here as sounding incredible.

[craig.p]

I own both.

The MB200 is heavy and thick-sounding unless you flatten the response curve per fdeck's info (in the MB200 thread if I recall correctly). Even flattened, though, there's still a veil over the sound -- a murkiness, if you will -- something that the BX250 won't give you unless you ask for it with the drive control.

You can come close to an MB200's sound with a BX250. You can't come close to a BX250's sound with an MB200. If you slap and you like a nice clear hi-fi sound, then the BX250 is what you want.

Both amps work great with external power amps. Either one would make a great preamp.

The BX250 has features the MB200 doesn't: the mids are semi-parametric, there's a capable soft-knee on-board compressor, there's a mute switch, there's a drive control, and there are two speaker outputs. The speaker outputs are phone jacks.

The MB200 has one speaker output but it's a dual-purpose one, i.e. Speakon+phone.

The MB200 uses a fan to keep cool. The BX250 uses no fan. My experience beating the crap out of an MB15 with an extension cab in hot weather is proof enough for me that a fan isn't needed in the BX250. (The MB15 head and the BX250 are essentially the same platform.)

Full disclosure: My MB200 is not running, due to fan-circuit problems. However, this is a sample size of only one in a population of what's probably thousands by this point, and so is statistically insignificant. I am still a huge supporter of GK, the MB200, and, by the way, the Backline.

I may have missed a difference or two, but you can compare the feature sets from the promo material.

Hope this helps.

[628829mg]

Originally Posted by Billy K

Anyone have info or feedback on these 2 amp heads they both are small in size and that is what I am looking for. The Carvin is 50 bucks more, Not a deal breaker if it is all that and more next to the GK.So I need help picking one or the other.Pro or con??

Go GK,
I tried the GK 500 watt micro at GC. I liked it. I liked the markbass littlemark III better so thats what I bought. I Ordered a Carvin BX500 because it had more features than the MB and alegedlly the same watts. I A/B them. The Carvin sounded weak compared to the MB and the MB's sound was tube like. Slam dunk for me, markbass.
I have heard that Carvin has some good stuff but imo the GK would be my choice between those two. Also I tried the Ampeg micro 500 watt and its not as loud as the GK or the Markbass (loud & fat). The Ampeg and the Carvin say there output is 500 watts, imo they seem more like 200 or 300 watts.

[jeff7bass]

The Carvin over the GK in a heartbeat. More features, more power, less coloration. The Carvin actually sounds more like my old GK700rb than the new GK micros, which are too woolly, IMO.
As for the Markbass, it's a different sound than the BX500 but not sure why you came away thinking the Carvin sounded like only 200 or 300 watts. At 4 ohms the amp will burn your ears off. At 2 ohms (2, 4 ohm cabs) you'll register at the earthquake center. At 8 ohms, it is only 300 watts.

[LAG]

Carvin is made in the USA while the GK is imported from China, if that matters. It does to me.

[Old Joe]

Originally Posted by craig.p

...
You can come close to an MB200's sound with a BX250. You can't come close to a BX250's sound with an MB200.
...

This is why I love my Carvin amp. Even without effects, if you put some time into working the controls, you can make it sound like anything you want.