GK MB200 vs. Acoustic B200

Darknerd95 · #1 10-30-2011, 04:52 PM

Hi guys, I'm new to the forum and just wanted to get a little advice on upgrading from my crappy little Line 6 15W amp to somewhere around the 200-300W range, loud enough for playing small clubs. I've narrowed it down to these two, and I'm hoping to get the one with the most tonal shaping possibilities, and the one with the best slap bass tone. Thanks

johnk_10 · #2 10-30-2011, 04:58 PM

IMO, the GK is leaps and bounds above the Acoustic in terms of quality alone.

StereoPlayer · #3 10-30-2011, 05:01 PM

GK MB200----so cool, I have 3!

4Mal · #4 10-30-2011, 05:03 PM

I haven't heard the Acoustic in a long time. I was pretty unimpressed when I did. IMO you can hardly go wrong with the GK Tonally it's flexibly voiced. I use it's big bro the 500 and do acoustic support to rock, country and blues with it. The thing just works for me.

oniman7 · #5 10-30-2011, 05:15 PM

I got an Acoustic B200 the August before last for the same reason as you. I like it. Warm tone and lots of flexibility. Very heavy though. I'm now trying to upgrade to a GK 500 MB with a 410 cab. Acoustic is cool, but in my opinion, GK is cooler.

SurferJoe46 · #6 10-30-2011, 05:43 PM

I'd say that it all depends on the style of music you play.

GKs to me sound bright and somewhat sterile - almost shrill and antiseptic.

Acoustic is more fleshed-out tone and is obviously a very old school in voicing. I like old school - I'm old too, so natch!

But seriously - I think if you can define your needs, then it's yards easier to decide on which amp/cab or combo you should listen to.

Everyone who owns a particular brand of gear is gonna tell all the others are Bandini and that the one(s) they use are the sterling-best in the market.

Opinions are like rectal orifices - and we know what that implies.

YOU need to sort it out for YOUR needs and YOUR price level. At this point, concern yourself with a lot of bilabial fricatives from advice givers.