|KJung ||01-30-2013 03:34 AM |
The EQ of the Puma is very similar to the fixed frequency Markbass models. The bass, upper mid and treble are similar designs and similar center/shelving start points. The big difference is the low mid control, which is centered way too high on the Markbass amps to provide that big, low mid, meaty sort of burpy tone. On the Puma, the low mid control is right where it should be, and it is the FAT knob.
The filter design on the Markbass and Puma is quite different. On the Puma, the taste control is quite powerful (so powerful that I never used it, since I liked the inherent, neutral tone of that amp). Turned one way, it rolls off the top and, and eventually rolls off the mids for a more Motown or dub vibe. Turned in that direction, it is somewhat similar to the VLE filter on the Markbass. Turned the other way, the taste filter is kind of the opposite of the Markbass VPF (scoop)... it rolls off low end and top end for a very midrange-focused tone, and is meant for fretless players to bring out the woody mwaw of that kind of tone (of course, you can also use it in low settings to tighten up the tone a bit using any bass).
Tonally, the current Puma's are more similar to the Markbass F1/F500 than the LMTube800, which is voiced deeper than the Puma, and MUCH brighter to my ear, a bit clacky in the upper mids. You can control this somewhat with the upper mid control, but I never could get the warm, mid present punch of the F1/F500 or the Puma from my LMTube800 (which was one of the only amps I ever returned for a refund... the day after I bought it..IMO and personal taste there). I also heard virtually no impact of the tube in that amp when comparing the 100% tube tone to the 100% solid state tone.
Set neutral, the Puma will be much fatter than the Carvin. It is really a wonderful 'plug and play' amp (like the F1/F500) and I never felt the need to vary the EQ on either of these amps except to control for room acoustics. Of course, the Carvin has a zillion knobs and tone controls, and you can probably get it relatively close. Much less expensive, and quite a bit larger. Nice 'budget priced' unit.
The only reason I don't own a Puma is that the Puma500 sounds relatively similar to my F500 (I served as one of the field testers on the updated version). If I used a large 8ohm cab, or played very loudly and used two large 8ohm cabs, I'd buy a Puma900 in a minute!