EA micro amps VS GK micros

[moeroncuban]

What are the opinions?

GK MB Fusion or GK MB 800

--------------OR------------

EA iamp pros.....

????????????? : )

[LowEndMan2112]

They're different beasts for sure, as EA is known for their crystal clear tone and GK, well, we all know what they sound like!

The iAmp Pro has a serious low end extension, it's really suited best for cabs that can take it. Also, it seems to have a lot more EQ options and what not, so if you're not one for that and prefer a simpler layout but still want EA I'd look into the Micro or Doubler.

[Low Class]

Having owned all of them I prefer the GK. I do not care for any of the EA Class D amps and I've owned every one of them. Absolutely no punch and odd sounding low end that's hard to EQ. The old EA iAmp 350 I LOVE, but it weighs 20 lbs.

[etoncrow]

I have no experience with GK since the 90's but I have the EA micro 300 & 550 and the iAmp500. I love them and would not trade them for anything else. Lots of high fidelity sound in a small package. The EQ is minimal on the micro (bass/mid/treble) but the iAmp has tone contouring across the spectrum. This thread might help you more.

EA Euphonic Audio Club (NEW WEBSITE)

[LowEndMan2112]

Originally Posted by Low Class

Having owned all of them I prefer the GK. I do not care for any of the EA Class D amps. Absolutely no punch and odd sounding low end that's hard to EQ. The old EA iAmp 350 I LOVE, but it weighs 20 lbs.

IIRC the iAmps have always been Class D, am I wrong?

[Low Class]

Originally Posted by LowEndMan2112

IIRC the iAmps have always been Class D, am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. The original iAmp 500(Ashdown), iAmp 600, and iAmp 350 were Class A/B. I have yet to find a Class D that has the punch and fullness of a Class A/B amp. Class D sounds weird to my ears. Interesting post by Roger Baer:

"Jimmy, interesting that we have such a different take on this one, as my experience with class D has been almost the exact opposite. When we first started work on the Valkyrie, it was intended to be a SMPS, class D amp. Once we got the preamp done and started working with the various class D modules available, one of the things I found I didn't like about them was this immediate response, that just didn't "feel" right to me. We had been working on the power section for weeks, when our engineer decided to bring this old 75lb. class A/B power amp he had designed for an audio company years back, for me to hear. It was like,

There was a "plushness" to the response that just felt right to me. It took me all of 30 seconds to decide that was the way the Valkyrie should sound and we never looked back. The trick became getting that 75 lb. sound into a 20 lb. amp."

That being said I must say that the GK did a good job with the MB800 as I like it better than the MB500. If you like the GK sound you'll like the MB800.

[ad9000]

I've owned an EA Micro 300 (original version) and iAmp 800 (second generation), both of which I no longer have. I'm not a longtime GK user, but I just got an MB800 and I like it much more than the EA amps. The EA's have their good points, mainly the fact that they are neutral without being too sterile. I found them to work better for upright bass. They have a great feature set, though I never found the contour switches to be useful. I think EA's are the bomb for anybody looking for a truly hi-fi sound. It took me a while to learn that that hi-fi isn't always the best way to go in a band situation, which has led me back to what I consider more of a "traditional" amp sound (the GK).

I agree with Low Class about the lack of punch with EA amps, and I also found the low end response to be a bit hard to dial in - to me it is more of an issue with the low mids, though.

[Jeremy Allen]

Originally Posted by ad9000

I think EA's are the bomb for anybody looking for a truly hi-fi sound. It took me a while to learn that that hi-fi isn't always the best way to go in a band situation, which has led me back to what I consider more of a "traditional" amp sound (the GK).

Ain't that the truth. The same goes for speaker cabs. And at the end of that long road to understanding, I'm left with a 1001RB/Neo 212 II for "typical/loud" situations, and an EA Doubler/Thunderchild for "clean as a whistle and/or upright" situations.

The best thing about the EA micro heads is, oddly enough, a package of things that does not include their tone. The Doubler, for example, has two channels, a mic input with 48v phantom power, a HPF/notch filter, a phase control, and 500 watts in an extremely small/impossibly light package. It sounds clean and not very interesting, but it can do so much in such a small package that I find it irresistible in many situations.

The GK heads sound much more like "bass amps," in a good way, to me; even the class D ones.

[AgressivePassiv]

I just tried out a few pedals today through a EA micro 300. Hands down the most sterile amp I've ever played through. Like plugging directly into a PA mixer. I have a GK mb 500 fusion. No comparison. GK sounds great, clean or gritty.

[::::BASSIST::::]

I currently own the mb200 and mb500 and have previously owned the EA micro 300. If find the gk stuff MUCH louder. The mb200 eats the EA 300 for breakfast IME. However tonally they are both very good... I'd actually give the edge to the EA there.