GK MB800 vs Mesa M6/M9?

[Scott McArron]

I'm exceptionally interested in hearing a comparison. I've never loved an amp as much as my M9, but there's the possibility I may be moving to Europe soon and will be traveling by local transit system.

[lomo]

IME: The keys to the M9 magic are 1)far more true low end content (50 Hz and below) than most heads, 2)a huge 12Hz goose, 3) healthy low mids around 200Hz 4)tube harmonics.

So far the best micro to get as close as possible has been the MB800. It still falls shy in the below 50Hz area, however and has no tube cream. If I was specifically looking to emulate an M9 in a lighter package I would go with an iAMP Pro (which does not have the nearly universal built-in high pass filter around 40Hz or so, as I understand it). It will allow you to bump 1200 and 200ish Hz and has massive power. Then I'd add a tube pre (EBS Valvedrive). Then I'd have to sell some other gear or a bass :-)

[KJung]

Originally Posted by lomo

IME: The keys to the M9 magic are 1)far more true low end content (50 Hz and below) than most heads, 2)a huge 12Hz goose, 3) healthy low mids around 200Hz 4)tube harmonics.

So far the best micro to get as close as possible has been the MB800. It still falls shy in the below 50Hz area, however and has no tube cream. If I was specifically looking to emulate an M9 in a lighter package I would go with an iAMP Pro (which does not have the nearly universal built-in high pass filter around 40Hz or so, as I understand it). It will allow you to bump 1200 and 200ish Hz and has massive power. Then I'd add a tube pre (EBS Valvedrive). Then I'd have to sell some other gear or a bass :-)

I'd also point out that if you aren't playing out of a cab with a driver like the 3015LF or 3012LF, that huge low end of the M6/M9 can be a bit of a problem, pumping that uber deep low end into cabs that can't use it. I would think the slightly tighter, more controlled low end of the GKMB800 would actually be a good thing for the vast majority of players using more typical 'bass cabs'.

And, +1, to my ear and experience with the MB500, it would be the closest micro head that has a bit of that massive upper mid brightness of the M6/M9 built in.

To put this in context, in a recent GTG, we got the Streamliner 'relatively close' to the M6 tone by boosting the upper mids ALL THE WAY at 2.5K (I think that was a 12db boost!), while slightly reducing the treble and keeping the bass flat. The GK MB500 (and from early reviews, the 800) has that upper mid grit and boost baked in pretty well.

[Scott McArron]

Originally Posted by lomo

IME: The keys to the M9 magic are 1)far more true low end content (50 Hz and below) than most heads, 2)a huge 12Hz goose, 3) healthy low mids around 200Hz 4)tube harmonics.

I agree. It's hard to find all of those things in 1 package. I just love how much the M9 slams. Although completely different, it has the heavy big feel that I remember from my old DB750. That wrecking ball tone is something I still can't achieve from any class D amps I've owned or tried, and I always end up getting rid of them for that very reason.

I've heard that the MB800 really slams, but I wonder if it can get in that same region as the M9 or DB750 in those terms. That may be asking too much, of course, but a man can dream. While my Streamliner sounded big and phat, it wasn't really wrecking ball fat like the DB750 (with Telefunken), and I could never get the mids to sound... as complex as I like.

[lomo]

Originally Posted by Scott McArron

I've heard that the MB800 really slams, but I wonder if it can get in that same region as the M9 or DB750 in those terms. That may be asking too much, of course, but a man can dream. While my Streamliner sounded big and phat, it wasn't really wrecking ball fat like the DB750 (with Telefunken), and I could never get the mids to sound... as complex as I like.

IME it will be in the same zip code, but nothing will get to the exact same address as an M9

[moretolife]

Good question. What say, Tom Bowlus, Chef and other guys with M6/M9?

[Jim Carr]

I can be happy with my CA6 and even my shuttle 6.0, especially if they are driving 410 or 2x210. With the M9, I don't want anything else, even with one 210. Perhaps it IS the slam. It makes me WANT to play a passive instrument. My '71 P-bass is back at work, though I think I still love my RW Jazz a little more. No matter, the M9 makes me happy on voice 2, 3, or 4, with this GEQ:

[tombowlus]

Originally Posted by moretolife

Good question. What say, Tom Bowlus, Chef and other guys with M6/M9?

I've only heard the MB800 at NAMM Shows, so far, but Chef should be able to comment on that based upon firsthand gig experience.