Question for people who own or tried Thunderfunk amps

bassmahn · #1 02-23-2011, 06:25 AM

Would you say that the amps are conservative on their wattage rating, or underpowered?

Thanks!

KJung · #2 02-23-2011, 06:28 AM

I gigged a 550 for years. It seems honestly rated, and I found it performed pretty similar to the LMII I replaced it with at the time. The 550 does tend to compress just a touch down low as you really dig in, as does the LMII.

I will be trying out a 750a for the first time this afternoon. All indications are that head is a hammer!

Anyway, the TF550b performs IMO honestly at its 500 watt published wattage spec. It is tight, warm and clean, with an organic, smooth top end.

lbwdog · #3 02-23-2011, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

The 550 does tend to compress just a touch down low as you really dig in, as does the LMII.

I replaced a G-K 800RB with a TF 550 in 2005. Loved the EQ and other features, but never could get comfortable with that compression, so I got a 700RB.

It did seem to be powerful enough though.

**jlepre** · #4 02-23-2011, 08:13 AM

to the OP, you have a typo in the title that you MAY want to correct.

**Chef** · #5 02-23-2011, 08:56 AM

It's an honestly rated 500 watts, in terms of how it feels.

bassmahn · #6 02-23-2011, 09:11 AM

Thanks for the info, and please excuse my lack of an H in Thunderfunk.
The coffee had not fully kicked in when I wrote the post.

mgbass · #7 02-23-2011, 01:47 PM

I have had a T-Funk since 2006 it is a 550 and I agree with Ken and the others that its an honest 500 watts.
I push an Accugroove El Wappo and its kicks butt!
Big sound, never runs out of gas, and have had great luck with it.
Enjoy!

duff2 · #8 02-23-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lbwdog

I replaced a G-K 800RB with a TF 550 in 2005. Loved the EQ and other features, but never could get comfortable with that compression, so I got a 700RB.

It did seem to be powerful enough though.

+1. I also was not fond of the compressor on my previously owned TFB420, so I never used it. At higher volume levels I found the amp a bit hard to keep under control because of that. Felt like I was always fighting to keep things even sounding. Never had any complaints about the output power though.

IMO, the absolute best amp based on this circuit architecture is the Fender Pro 800. Love the compressor on that amp...and power, whoa nelly!

Cheers,
Duff2

WingKL · #9 02-23-2011, 07:35 PM

The Thunderfunk 500 and 550 and maybe the 750 uses an interesting engineering design to make itself seem louder than it's actual RMS power rating. It has a very high voltage rail of about +-100V and a decent amount of power supply capacitance. It would make about 2KW into 4 ohms (engineering types can correct me here) if the power supply could actually provide the required continuous current. However due to the type (traditional EI) and size of the transformer, it won't and the voltage sags when a lot of sustained current is required. That's the low end compression that people hear. The TF550 may sound like a 500W amp but its probably about 350W in reality. As some would surely say, what it's actual ratings are is irrelevant, how it sounds and if it's loud enough for you is.

KJung · #10 02-24-2011, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WingKL

The Thunderfunk 500 and 550 and maybe the 750 uses an interesting engineering design to make itself seem louder than it's actual RMS power rating. It has a very high voltage rail of about +-100V and a decent amount of power supply capacitance. It would make about 2KW into 4 ohms (engineering types can correct me here) if the power supply could actually provide the required continuous current. However due to the type (traditional EI) and size of the transformer, it won't and the voltage sags when a lot of sustained current is required. That's the low end compression that people hear. The TF550 may sound like a 500W amp but its probably about 350W in reality. As some would surely say, what it's actual ratings are is irrelevant, how it sounds and if it's loud enough for you is.

Just spent some time with the TF750a, and that seems to 'fix the issue' with that low end compression when pushed with the 550B. Similar tone, bigger but still tight low end, and more open when pushed. Of course, it will cost you $1,900, which is a lot of cash, but for those who dig everything about the TF550b except for that 'compressing when pushed', it would be a nice option if you had the scratch.

73jbass · #11 02-24-2011, 12:30 PM

I've been using a heavily upgraded TF420 since 2006,and I haven't considered using any other amp. Don't use the compressor at all, it's plug and play for sure.

KJung · #12 02-24-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73jbass

I've been using a heavily upgraded TF420 since 2006,and I haven't considered using any other amp. Don't use the compressor at all, it's plug and play for sure.

FYI, and to the othe poster above talking about the compressor, that is the INPUT compression circuit. The thing some of us are talking about is the impact of the power amp safety limiter (or the more technical issue mentioned above that is over my head!) that seems to overly compress the deep low end of this amp when really pushed. The defeatable input limiter is a totally different thing, and is actually quite nice (IMO) if set at a very low level to just take the edge of the hardest, lowest hits.

Not surprisingly, the 750a is more open down low at high volumes. Of course, if you never pusht he TF550b to really loud volumes, the issue is a moot point... that amp sounds great.

cybersnyder · #13 02-24-2011, 12:53 PM

I was always interested in the ThunderFunk, but never jumped in and then it got too expensive at $1900 for the 750a. It seemed well engineered, but maybe over-engineered.

4-string · #14 02-24-2011, 01:00 PM

I owned the 750a for a short time, and it was loud as heck. 750w seems pretty accurate.

Even if the 750a is voiced wider than its predecessors, it's still a tight amp IMO, and that contributes to the perceived loudness I guess as it don't use a lot of juice to pump out sub lows.

KJung · #15 02-24-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4-string

I owned the 750a for a short time, and it was loud as heck. 750w seems pretty accurate.

Even if the 750a is voiced wider than its predecessors, it's still a tight amp IMO, and that contributes to the perceived loudness I guess as it don't use a lot of juice to pump out sub lows.

+1 I was actually suprised a bit when I finally tried the 750A today, since quite a few have posted about the much bigger low end versus the 550. I didn't hear that at all... just more open than the 550b.... i.e., all the good of the 550a to my ear, with a similar tight low end but much less compression. I'm sure the amps sound a bit different (I was not able to directly A/B the 750 to the 550) but the second I plugged in the 750a, I immediately heard 'Thunderfunk' (which is a good thing). The price does seem a bit out of wack to me, but it is a quality piece of gear, and definitely loud enough to cover just about anything IMO.

**Chef** · #16 02-24-2011, 01:03 PM

The price jump to the 750 priced me out of being interested in that amp.

4-string · #17 02-24-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

+1 I was actually suprised a bit when I finally tried the 750A today, since quite a few have posted about the much bigger low end versus the 550. I didn't hear that at all... just more open than the 550b.... i.e., all the good of the 550a to my ear, with a similar tight low end but much less compression. I'm sure the amps sound a bit different (I was not able to directly A/B the 750 to the 550) but the second I plugged in the 750a, I immediately heard 'Thunderfunk' (which is a good thing). The price does seem a bit out of wack to me, but it is a quality piece of gear, and definitely loud enough to cover just about anything IMO.

That is funny, because the sole reason I sold mine is that I didn't find it open sounding at all.

The 750a is the only Thunderfunk I've played through, so I can't compare, but I really missed the open, airy top end that I like. Might have been a bad combo also, it sounded very good with my fretless jazz, where I go for a much, much more mid-heavy tone.

Great amp, seemed to be built extremely well, just not my thing.

KJung · #18 02-24-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4-string

That is funny, because the sole reason I sold mine is that I didn't find it open sounding at all.

The 750a is the only Thunderfunk I've played through, so I can't compare, but I really missed the open, airy top end that I like. Might have been a bad combo also, it sounded very good with my fretless jazz, where I go for a much, much more mid-heavy tone.

Great amp, seemed to be built extremely well, just not my thing.

No, you are accurate... I was talking about more 'open' versus the original 550b, not in an absolute sense. The Thunderfunk voicing is tight and punchy and an unusual (IMO) combination of 'warm but totally clean'. The 750a is still a bit rolled off up top, but if you cut quite a bit out at 1K or so using the upper mid band, the upper treble actually emerges nicely... it is more 'masked' but the strong upper mid response than actually chopped off (like the TC RH450).

4-string · #19 02-24-2011, 01:19 PM

Ahh, I really have to wait for TC to come out with an updated version of the RH450, one that (hopefully) includes the tweetertone.

dmrogers · #20 02-24-2011, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

'warm but totally clean'

I think this is the description I would use to describe both of my Thunderfunks. I have the 550B and 750A, and I am totally content as far as amps go. They have the sound I was searching for with all the other heads I tried.

I know this wasn't part of your post, but the EQ, man what a great tool. When you consider the EQ, Enhance and Timbre controls, you have the ultimate tone shaping tools (IMO).

Plus they are well built. I guess you could say the 750 is a little pricey, however, I looked at it as a long term purchase. After I tried it out, I knew I found what I was looking for.

I don't think the Thunderfunk is for someone that likes to experiment a lot, especially with the initial cost of the 750. If you find your tastes changing a lot and you can't satisfy it with anything other than a new head, then you might want to look at something else. But if you like the tone, quality and versatility of the Thunderfunk, it's built to give you many years of good service.

I tend to hang on to things.....