Epifani vs Thunderfunk - anyone tried these back to back?

[Molan]

I have an Epifani UL502 which I'm really happy with but I recently heard a friend playing through a Thunderfunk and it sounded really nice.

Very different bass, cab and, of course, fingers but it just sounded a bit more 'organic' and natural to me.

I don't know if he was using the SS or 'tube' switch or not I'm afraid but I'm guessing it was the tube option.

So I just wondered if anyone had the opportunity to play through both and had any thoughts about differences between them?

[KJung]

I owned both a 502 and a TF550b at the same time for quite a long period, and gigged them with the same cab (Epi410UL) in a variety of rooms over a period of a couple of years.

VERY different sounding. As you know, the 502 is VERY loud, has a HUGE low end, and has a creamy, fat sort of tone with a hi fi top end. The low end can kind of overwhelm the voicing in a live mix, and I found that low end a bit hard to control. I describe that head as fat, smooth, big, and creamy sounding. Many describe the voicing as a bit dark, since there is not a lot of upper mid content, nor 'grit and grind'.

The TF is ALL about warm, organic midrange. It is much tighter in the low end, and a bit more organic up top... I describe this tone as punchy, warm, organic. It won't 'thunder and rumble' like the 502, but I found that it sounded clearer and actually louder due to its voicing sitting in a mix a bit better. The EQ is, of course, miles ahead of the 502 in power and features.

Both very nice, but I greatly preferred the TF550b. I understand the newer TF750a has more going on down in the deep bass, and that it is not quite as mid warm and punchy as the 550b, but have not had the pleasure of trying one.

[KJung]

PS I like to have those two general flavors of tone available to me, but eventually found (for me at least) better executions of both tones (deep, wide, modern, a bit hi fi, and warm, punchy, organic).

I replaced the 502 with the TecAmp Puma500. Not quite as loud, but much smaller, much lighter, and even though it has that same HUGE low end and hi fi top end as the 502, the tone is much more controllable and sits better in the mix IMO and IME... the EQ is WONDERFUL on this head.

I replaced the TF550b with a Markbass LMII (now called the LMIII). I could get the LMII to sound VERY similar to the Thunderfunk by rolling off a bit of low end, and engaging the VLE, which is a passive tone control that 'old schools up' the top end, but also enjoyed having that bit of a wider tone and a bit more power (volume) in a much smaller, lighter package.

IMO there!

[Molan]

Interesting stuff - thanks for this

I do really like my Epi, just got 'itchy' fingers, lol.

[Molan]

Ken - if you see this - how would you compare the RH450 against the Epi?

I just love the feature set of the RH and having the onboard compressor & tuner would be just perfect for me

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Molan

Ken - if you see this - how would you compare the RH450 against the Epi?

I just love the feature set of the RH and having the onboard compressor & tuner would be just perfect for me

The RH450 is MUCH closer to the Thunderfunk tone than the 502... punchy, warm, tight, not particularly low end nor treble exended. I view the RH450 as a more powerful (not on paper, but in reality), more fully featured, smaller TF550b. IMO. It has no similarity to the huge low end, polite upper mids, and hi fi treble response of the 502.

I have not played the Staccato, but my guess is, that deeper, sizzlier, more scooped voicing built into that head would move it closer to the 502.

[Molan]

Ken - you are a star!

I actually really like the look of the Staccato - but only because it's red, lol.

I do like the mid scoop of the Epi & often pull even more mids out for 'everyday' playing at home.

I'm using a pair of Berg AE112's by the way. If I decide to swap heads I may go for new cabs as well