GK MB500 vs. Aggy TH500...input requested

[nutdog]

[Bassist30]

Originally Posted by ::::BASSIST::::

Bassist that is a fine job with cabinet making.

[::::BASSIST::::]

Thank you.

[bugbass]

Originally Posted by KJung

I replaced my Streamliner900 with the TH500, primarily because I was tired of carrying around the AE410, which was a match made in heaven with the Streamliner900. I found the Streamliner VERY picky regarding cab pairings, and with some cabs, it was 'too much of a good thing'... fat, smooth, relaxed, but hard to punch up and brighten up at the same time. The AE410 did that automatically... really an amazing matchup to my ear, especially with a P Bass or other more passive, old school instruments.

The Streamliner900 is a totally different thing than either of these heads. MUCH more tubey sounding (in the way we use tubey on TB) than either... with a bit of the 'feel' of a tube amp (very rare in hybrids... it 'gives' a bit). It is very relaxed in the mids mids (versus the VERY aggressive punchy mid profile of the TH500), and is also very sweet and clean and tubey in the treble response (versus the much more aggressive, bright upper mid response of the GK.

I guess if I was forced to put these head on a single continuum, the MBFusion would be on the bright, modern, aggressive end, with the Streamliner on the complete other end of fat, tubey, relaxed, interactive, and 'tube give' side. The TH500 is kind of in the middle... big and round down low like the Streamliner, but very mid present and rough in the mids, and much more organic/less sizzly/less bright up top (edit: Really, all three of these amps are quite different, and most would have a STRONG preference of one over the other two. No amount of knob turning gets any of these three to sound anything like each other IMO... so my 'forcing them on a single continuum' doesn't really work)

Again, many who own both the DB750 and the TH500 find quite a bit of similarity between the two, with the DB750 being not surprisingly a bit bigger down low and a bit sweeter up top, and the TH500 having MUCH better control of the midrange with that powerful semi-parametric mid control and the drive function, which is kind of like a variable combination hi pass/lo pass in a way.

I very much like the fact that the TH500 gets very 'old school' sounding with my P, but does not need tubes to do it. It is a very simple, honestly rated, high quality and highly reliable amp (at least I haven't seen ANY problem posts in the year this amp has been out). I am a BIG fan of no tubes when I'm gigging on the road, as long as I don't feel I'm compromising my tone.

IMO, IMO and IME!

How does the TH500 handle the b-string?

[KJung]

Originally Posted by bugbass

How does the TH500 handle the b-string?

Big low end on that head. So, sounds very good to me. I am not one who typically has a problem with the lower notes on the B string with any of my rigs though. I don't dial in a ton of low end to my sound, which can blur a B string's performance. So, for my preference of 'hearing the windings on the B string' (i.e., lots of that second harmonic in the B string tone), and since I have some very good instruments, the only time I have an issue on a B string is the rare occasion where I am pushing a cab at volumes it wasn't designed for.

[bugbass]

Originally Posted by KJung

Big low end on that head. So, sounds very good to me. I am not one who typically has a problem with the lower notes on the B string with any of my rigs though. I don't dial in a ton of low end to my sound, which can blur a B string's performance. So, for my preference of 'hearing the windings on the B string' (i.e., lots of that second harmonic in the B string tone), and since I have some very good instruments, the only time I have an issue on a B string is the rare occasion where I am pushing a cab at volumes it wasn't designed for.

I was thinking more about power. I sold my LMII and F500 cause they did not have the lovend headroom I need. Maybe I need something like a Thunderfunk 750/800 to get what I'm after.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by bugbass

I was thinking more about power. I sold my LMII and F500 cause they did not have the lovend headroom I need. Maybe I need something like a Thunderfunk 750/800 to get what I'm after.

IMO and IME, the 630 watts of the Thunderfunk 750a/800 into 4ohms isn't at all more open sounding or louder down low than the LMII or especially the F500 (I've a/b'd those at gig volumes quite a bit).

If you have a very large cab or a very inefficient cab, and you dial a lot of low end into your tone and/or have an aggressive technique, you can run out of headroom with even an honestly rated 500 watt amp. Sometimes, a higher wattage head like a DB750 will help, although depending on the cabs you are using, they might not be able to use the power. Also, cab efficiency impacts this more than absolute volume.

Edit: That all being said, I DO find the TH500 to be more open 'under stress' in the low end at high volumes than the LMII and F500. So, that bit more open, less compressed deep low end might be enough to make quite a difference. Of course, the Glockenklang Blue Soul, the GK MB800 and the Genz Shuttle Max 9.2 HAMMER down low.

[tjh]

not to be too quickly moving past the gal in the window ala garters ...but to continue OT a bit here ... with all the talk of the TH500 and MB500, can the same sentiments be carried down to the TH350 and the MB200?? ..with the exception of the head room, of course ... thanks

[KJung]

Originally Posted by tjh

not to be too quickly moving past the gal in the window ala garters ...but to continue OT a bit here ... with all the talk of the TH500 and MB500, can the same sentiments be carried down to the TH350 and the MB200?? ..with the exception of the head room, of course ... thanks

Tonally, IMO yes. The BIG difference to me is that IMO and IME, the TH350 is of the same quality, and has most of the features and the same front end as the larger TH500.

The MB200 is a less featured, more low end product... kind of two different things. I would compare the TH350/500 more to the MB500/800.... i.e., both top notch, pro gear at different power levels. The noise levels, etc. of the MB200's I've played have been pretty awful, and lots and lots of 'issues' posts with those.

[Bassist30]

Originally Posted by bugbass

I was thinking more about power. I sold my LMII and F500 cause they did not have the lovend headroom I need. Maybe I need something like a Thunderfunk 750/800 to get what I'm after.

You have some nice basses and the GB u410 should be enough to get a good low B. Maybe the low end by the amp your using isn't what you like. I am sure you are getting enough low b out of what you got but not sure what you mean by lovend headroom. I don't have the TH500 (tried it) LM11 or F500. I have tried many of the Micro amps at which I settled on the GK Fusion. It may be just what you are using which is not getting the bottom you want. I have the Thunderfunk 750A and it has a fantastic low end but that's me. You have the shuttle 9 which is more power than any of the amps you described. The GK fusion has a very good and focused bottom. The Thunderfunk 750A has a very good and focused bottom. there are many amps and many users and everyone will give a different opinion. Every amp I bought I tried before I purchased it. Usually many before. The only one I didn't was the thunderfunk 550b, But I lucked out on that one. That is why the 750A came easy to make a choice to purchase it. They are pleasantly different. You have the cabinet and basses to get the low end you are looking for I say its the amp. Unless the basses are not set up right but I dont think thats the issue. By the way Nice Band you have.

[bugbass]

Originally Posted by KJung

IMO and IME, the 630 watts of the Thunderfunk 750a/800 into 4ohms isn't at all more open sounding or louder down low than the LMII or especially the F500 (I've a/b'd those at gig volumes quite a bit).

If you have a very large cab or a very inefficient cab, and you dial a lot of low end into your tone and/or have an aggressive technique, you can run out of headroom with even an honestly rated 500 watt amp. Sometimes, a higher wattage head like a DB750 will help, although depending on the cabs you are using, they might not be able to use the power. Also, cab efficiency impacts this more than absolute volume.

Edit: That all being said, I DO find the TH500 to be more open 'under stress' in the low end at high volumes than the LMII and F500. So, that bit more open, less compressed deep low end might be enough to make quite a difference. Of course, the Glockenklang Blue Soul, the GK MB800 and the Genz Shuttle Max 9.2 HAMMER down low.

Ok, thanks!
I'm keeping my Streamliner 900, so maybe a MB800 will fill my needs for power and something in the other end of the scale soundvise.

[Britbonic]

FWIW, I tried both in the store for a long time and ended up with the MB800. I also have a tonehammer pedal and while in theory you could hook it up the power amp in the GK I don't think you'd necessarily get a TH500 (or something similar). I don't have specifics on implementation but IIRC from other threads a big part of the sound for either amp comes from the power amps section, either due to how it's voiced, power supply differences or some other variable. I was also coming from an MB200 which I loved but give the small size difference didn't feel the need to keep after I bought the MB800.

I agree with an earlier poster than one of the great features of these heads is that they are plug and play. Initially I went with everything pretty much at noon. I was happy with the sound but once I starting tweaking EQ was pleasantly surprised with the results. For my small rig, I use a Berg AE112. Great sounding cab and with the MB800 hard to beat.

Recently I had a old school soul/R&B gig where I wanted more of that sound. Also no drummer and pretty low volume. I used my 57 AVRI PBass with flats for the gig and then spent a bunch of time tweaking the EQ. I tried a trick that someone showed me on another amp. I had the contour at about 10 or 11:00 to scope some mids and then ran the low mids and bass at about 1:00 and rolled off the treble and upper mids to about 11:00. My sound was big and fat with tons of headroom. Guys in the band loved it and I felt like I was playing a nice old tube amp. With a drummer, I'd probably roll off the bass more to make sure I wasn't competing with kick.

[bugbass]

Originally Posted by Bassist30

You have some nice basses and the GB u410 should be enough to get a good low B. Maybe the low end by the amp your using isn't what you like. I am sure you are getting enough low b out of what you got but not sure what you mean by lovend headroom. I don't have the TH500 (tried it) LM11 or F500. I have tried many of the Micro amps at which I settled on the GK Fusion. It may be just what you are using which is not getting the bottom you want. I have the Thunderfunk 750A and it has a fantastic low end but that's me. You have the shuttle 9 which is more power than any of the amps you described. The GK fusion has a very good and focused bottom. The Thunderfunk 750A has a very good and focused bottom. there are many amps and many users and everyone will give a different opinion. Every amp I bought I tried before I purchased it. Usually many before. The only one I didn't was the thunderfunk 550b, But I lucked out on that one. That is why the 750A came easy to make a choice to purchase it. They are pleasantly different. You have the cabinet and basses to get the low end you are looking for I say its the amp. Unless the basses are not set up right but I dont think thats the issue. By the way Nice Band you have.

I think I miss the power-reserve the old highpower amps had. I found a guy not far from me with a TF750(whats the chances for that in Norway , so I can try it out.

[joelb79]

Originally Posted by KJung

Tonally, IMO yes. The BIG difference to me is that IMO and IME, the TH350 is of the same quality, and has most of the features and the same front end as the larger TH500.

Although, they do sound nothing alike. The 350 is not as deeply voiced; the 500 is more modern sounding.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by joelb79

Although, they do sound nothing alike. The 350 is not as deeply voiced; the 500 is more modern sounding.

I was comparing the TH350 to the TH500. Very similar. I assume you are talking about the TH350 versus the MB500, and +1 totally different vibes.