GK 700RB-II vs GK 1001RB-II
 

Been reading some TB stuff.

I'm getting the feeling that the GK 700RB-II is loved more than the 1001RB-II. Any truth to that? I don't see how there could be a qualitative difference in the sound.

Or is it just the minimum watts and weight to get the job done that enter into it?

I'm thinking of putting together a rig that will work for me indoors and outdoors and have been thinking along the lines of 1001RB-II and GK 212 Neo for starters, better cab (or cabs) later. For outdoors, watts and speaker area (which requires watts) seem to be the issue.

Am I thinking right?

Thanks!

Soundwise... You'll only get the aggressive GK sound at a lower SPL with the 700RB-The 1001RB has more headroom. Outside if that, it's just wattage and weight.

I have both, they are the same amp. The 1001RBll has more watts (700) and the 700RBll has 480. I have done 500 plus gigs with my 700RBll over the past 7 years,( never been in the shop) many out door gigs and the 700 has more than enough power ( I always have PA support). I just got a killer deal on a nearly new 1001 RBll off of E-Bay. Sounds the same as the 700, just had to turn down master and boost a bit

Read the threads thoroughly. Gk neos compare favourably to any other manufactured cabs. They are fantastic cabs. Cool thread recently where dude blind listened/compared them with db series cabs. Good read.

I have owned both the 700rb2 and 1001rb2. If you want the gk grind and growl- the 700 would be my choice. If you want straight clean and clear ( but still aggressive- it is a gk after all) go 1001.

I tried the 700 first, and, it didn't have enough clean headroom for me.
Other folks want that grittier sound.

I opted for the 1001, because it styas cleaner, longer.

I have two of the Neo 112, and, two of the Neo 212.
Either set works great, depending on size of the venue, and, I use 112/212 as well.

WOW, fabubass... that's 1.37 gigs per week!

Thanks, all, for great info. I'm getting it.

Clean watts, more headroom is for me = 1001RBII.

Yeah, I play a lot, between 2 and 6 gigs a week. Just get that GK, rack it, set it flat and fuggetabout it.....hahahha
Good Luck

Thanks, fabu!

Some people want the clean headroom of the 1001. Others want the grit that you'll only get by pushing the 700. I had both and sold the 1001. The 700 is enough power for me and I prefer the GK growl tone over the GK clean tone. Just preference and tonal goals.

+1
Well said.

700rbII is a sweet head. I've been gigging mine for 6 years now, and not a single issue with it. I prefer 2x112's over the 212, but my 112+212 is a sweet sounding bigger stage rig. Really, just going into a single gk neo112 is enough if your band is playing smaller clubs (and just fine with pa support).

1001rbII is okay, but sounds a bit sterile to me...... same basic tone as the 700rbII, but needs to be pushed into ear bleed volumes to warm up. The one I owned lasted about a week before going back to the store for the 700rbII. I'm not a big grindy, growly tone guy, but the warmth you can get with the 700rbII is pretty nice. A P with flats yields a nice low mid grunt when pushing the 700rbII. I really noticed the difference in the heads when runnng into a 'peg 810.

I think that bit of color you can get out of the 700rbII let's you sit in the mix a bit better..... allowing you to be heard without adding a bunch more volume.

A question here.

I have both the 700rb-II and the 1001rb-II, and bought both used. I have used the 700 mostly, with the 1001 sitting at home as a back-up unit, so I have very little experience actually using the 1001. When I A/B test them at home, it appears that there is little or no volume / power difference.

I have most of the settings turned to noon, with the input volume set at about 9:00. I am using an active 5-string, and do not have the pad turned on. I have tried this using various GK cabs in bi-amp mode (including a Neo 212-II), in both single-cab (8-ohm) and two cab (4-ohm) set ups. Each time, I set everything identical on the two units. I can't turn it up much past 9:00 inside my house, as things start to self-destruct in the room.

The few times I have taken the 1001 to rehearsal, etc., it seems almost like it has less volume than the 700. I have not A/B'd it at rehearsal, though.

Does this make any sense? Could there be something not quite right with the 1001?

Would appreciate your advice. Thanks

There might be something wrong..... but then again, I think the big difference is that the "color" you get out of the 700 helps it to stand out a bit more when in the mix. My 1001 definitely had more headroom, but was no where near as colorful as my 700.

700rb-ii

i have and love the 1001RB-II. When i need dirt, i engage a pedal, otherwise i enjoy the huge headroom and superb low end definition of the 1001RB-II. Just be prepared to experiment with its controls, GK's are strange somewhat.

Either way, you will love the amp.

Bassdood - you do realise that the position of the actual vol/gain knobs isn't nessesarily indicative of where it's at re power.
Some may be at half volume at 12 o'clock, others may be virtually flat out at 12 o'clock.

+ 1 and - 1. As far as my experience goes.

Had a 1001 and 2X12s. Also had a Backline 600. The backline became my choice of head between the 2. I got the same amount of usable volume out of both. Plus the backline sounded better, and was much easier to dial a good tone in with. And the backline is less than half the wattage.

I now use a Carvin BX500 and I'm much much happier.

Can u get the "growl" outta the 1001 at lower volumes using the boost control?
eg. With the master vol low, gain & boost up higher?

Yes, I believe so. According to many folks' experimentation with GKs, the boost control seems to have more of a pronounced effect when the gain is high... and you get some distortion by having the gain, alone, above 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock.
The thing is that you then have to be very careful with the master ("woofer") control, because the 1001 has so much power that with the gain and boost way up, a hair over "nothing" on the master will topple tall buildings.