New Markbass setup - feedback please

modulaaron · #1 08-28-2010, 08:20 PM

Hey all,

I'm about to spring for a new setup and I'd like to get some feedback from anyone with an opinion. Setup is as follows:

Markbass 102HF - 2x10 + horn (400W @ 8 ohms)
Markbass 115P - 1x15 (400W @ 8 ohms)
Markbass Little Mark Tube 800W (500W RMS @ 8 ohms, 800W RMS @ 4 ohms)

Combined, this adds up to a 800W 4 ohm setup (plenty loud), or the head can be paired with either the 2x10 or the 1x15 for a (still loud) 500W 8 ohm setup, allowing either to be used for a smaller venue or for practice. Overall, it seems like a great balance between portability, flexibility, and efficiency.

Any thing I'm missing here? Possible tone issues? Too much power for the cabs (even though the wattage balances)? Anyone who's used or uses a similar setup - I'd love to hear your take. Thanks!

JimmyM · #2 08-28-2010, 08:38 PM

i think the 800 is overkill for those cabs...honestly, i doubt if they could take a full 400w without sounding like they'll blow up, and i prefer the sound of the 500w little marks (that's a taste thing, though), and i prefer matching cabs, but i guess if you keep the volume reasonable it should be ok.

**Freddels** · #3 08-28-2010, 08:56 PM

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to try out that head with the 115P cab and it sounded great. I really didn't use the tube part though. I also think that the 102HF is a good sounding cab. I happen to have the CMD 102P combo which is that cab and the LMK III head. BassyBill uses this combo with that 115 cab and he really likes it. I'm sure he'll chime in here.

For me, if I were to add another cab, I would be leaning toward the 104HF to make my rig a 610HF.

I also agree with Jimmy that the 800 might be more power than those cabs can handle. You might do better with the LMK III.

modulaaron · #4 08-28-2010, 10:19 PM

Thanks for the replies. Yeah, I had a feeling that the 800W may be too much for those cabs. Nothing that paying $150 or more less can't solve

Instead of going all out up front, I'm thinking that it's better to just start with the 400W 102HF and the 500W little brother of the 800W LM Tube. That leaves me with a few more choices:

1. Go with a 4 ohm cab and have more power, possibly better tone, but not be able to expand my rig with this amp.
2. Go with an 8 ohm cab, which would allow me to expand later (add a 1x15, another 2x10, or maybe a 4x10), but possibly at the cost of tone and definitely at the cost of initial watt output.

I understand the pros/cons of 4 ohm vs 8 ohm as a whole, but if there's anything with these amps that stands out in that area, it would totally be able to help me make a decision. Thanks.

modulaaron · #5 08-28-2010, 11:23 PM

According to this thread, 8 ohms looks to be the way to go with a setup pretty close to my new one.

JimmyM · #6 08-28-2010, 11:24 PM

there really isn't any difference between 8 ohm and 4 ohm tonally. some may disagree, but they also use two cabs which makes a much bigger difference than the extra wattage/headroom.

and because of the expansion factor, i'd go 8.

modulaaron · #7 08-28-2010, 11:50 PM

8 ohms is what I'm going to go with - expandability is a big plus. I appreciate your help, gracias.

**bassybill** · #8 08-29-2010, 12:39 AM

Freddels knows my taste in amps well...

What can I say that I haven't already said? I love my CMD102P on it's own for smaller gigs and with the 151P when I need to be able to get ridiculously loud. The two boxes work very well together. I like the fact that the combo can be angled back when I'm using it alone without the need for a stand (or the need for a flat space to put the head), but as you want a separate head, I think the 102HF might be a better cab than the piezo version (it's a slightly bigger box for a start) so it's swings and roundabouts, really.

If you like the idea of a Markbass head (I'd go Little Mark III myself) with the 102HF cab, then go for it, it wil be a very capable mini rig. But be warned - once you hear that setup with the 151P added, you'll not rest until you've bought the latter, I assure you.

A 4 ohm cab would limit your choices later, so you're dead right to go with the 8 ohm option, I think.

And 500W into 4 ohms is a good amount of power for the two cabs when you do add the 15 - 800 would probably be overkill.

Kwesi · #9 08-29-2010, 01:42 AM

Great setup but:

1) Please don't buy it new, the price... hurts to think about.

2) go for the LMII or LMIII you don't need 800W to sound good n' loud

modulaaron · #10 08-29-2010, 02:28 PM

@bassybill - I could totally see the angle back feature of the CMD102P being useful. If they had a combo of the LMT 500 and the 102HF that did that, I'd be all over it (hint, hint Markbass). And yeah, I'm sure a 151P will be in the mix eventually - it'll make for a nice, fully balanced setup with all bases covered (yes, pun intended, couldn't resist).

@Kwesi - Yeah, definitely not going with the 800W. Originally, I was just thinking ahead in terms of saving $ in the long run (60% more wattage output for 18% more $), but apparently there's more difference between the two than just raw output (JimmyM concurs earlier in the thread). Gonna go with new gear - it's actually not easy to find what I'm looking for used where I live (and paying for shipping a used cab wouldn't be cheap).

Thanks again all - shopping cart ready for checkout.

bugbass · #11 08-29-2010, 02:35 PM

That rig will be smokin! Go for it! Never too much power...

**Freddels** · #12 08-29-2010, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by modulaaron

@bassybill - I could totally see the angle back feature of the CMD102P being useful. If they had a combo of the LMT 500 and the 102HF that did that, I'd be all over it (hint, hint Markbass). And yeah, I'm sure a 151P will be in the mix eventually - it'll make for a nice, fully balanced setup with all bases covered (yes, pun intended, couldn't resist).

@Kwesi - Yeah, definitely not going with the 800W. Originally, I was just thinking ahead in terms of saving $ in the long run (60% more wattage output for 18% more $), but apparently there's more difference between the two than just raw output (JimmyM concurs earlier in the thread). Gonna go with new gear - it's actually not easy to find what I'm looking for used where I live (and paying for shipping a used cab wouldn't be cheap).

Thanks again all - shopping cart ready for checkout.

Have you actually compared the LMTube with the LM III? Do a search on here and many will say that the tube doesn't do much. It's also soldered to the board so if the tube goes, so does the board . . . you can't just replace the tube.

modulaaron · #13 08-29-2010, 03:15 PM

@bugbass - I'll know soon enough - it sure looks to be.

@Freddels -

Quote:

Have you actually compared the LMTube with the LM III? Do a search on here and many will say that the tube doesn't do much. It's also soldered to the board so if the tube goes, so does the board . . . you can't just replace the tube.

Opinions seem to be varied regarding this - it's obvious to some and not others. The LMT was $80 more than the LMIII - not a terribly huge amount to lose in case the tube warmth isn't as prominent as I'd hope. For me, the potential benefits outweighed the cost difference in this case. Plus, I can always return/exchange it if I decide to go for something else.