Shuttle 9.0 vs Thunderfunk

[Tankdave]

OK, I know it's a bit obscure but on the off-chance has anyone ever A-B'ed a Shuttle 9.0 and the Thunderfunk TFB600

I'm still trying to find the right amp for me, I have the Shuttle and love the bottom end clarity and depth but it's tone shaping is not to my tastes, so I am considering a Max 9.2, but maybe the Thunderfunk with its VERY flexible tone controls would be a better choice?

[KJung]

It is the Max 9.2 for you all the way. WAY more slam than the Thunderfunk 750/800 (much less the 600), and while different, I find the tone controls even more powerful, once you consider that you have two individual preamps that can be used alone or blended together, along with the master, variable voicing options.

It will give you more of what you like already with your Shuttle 9 (which I also find a bit thin on EQ control). The FET channel of the Max 9.2 can do a pretty darn good job of emulating the Thunderfunk IMO. The lower price and lighter weight is just a bonus!

IMO and IME on this one.

Edit: Hard not to like the Thunderfunk also... nice head also. Gigged a TF550b for years. Solid product. I just prefer the Max 9.2 at this point from a power/tone/weight/price comparison.

[Tankdave]

Thanks for this info Mr K, it's very useful to have. It would seem the Max is a logical progression, as I like the some of the Shuttle's abilities already.

[gregbackstrom]

Originally Posted by KJung

It is the Max 9.2 for you all the way. WAY more slam than the Thunderfunk 750/800 (much less the 600), and while different, I find the tone controls even more powerful, once you consider that you have two individual preamps that can be used alone or blended together, along with the master, variable voicing options.

It will give you more of what you like already with your Shuttle 9 (which I also find a bit thin on EQ control). The FET channel of the Max 9.2 can do a pretty darn good job of emulating the Thunderfunk IMO. The lower price and lighter weight is just a bonus!

IMO and IME on this one.

Edit: Hard not to like the Thunderfunk also... nice head also. Gigged a TF550b for years. Solid product. I just prefer the Max 9.2 at this point from a power/tone/weight/price comparison.

I regularly gig both the Thunderfunk TFB800-B2 and the GB ShuttleMAX 9.2. I certainly agree that the 9.2 is a much more flexible amp than the Shuttle 9.0. I don't agree that the ShuttleMAX has "WAY more slam" than the Thunderfunk. Both of these amps slam really hard in different ways. I prefer the ShuttleMAX with Thunderchild and fEARful cabs because of the tightly-controlled low end. However, there's a certain punch I get with the Thunderfunk and Bergantino AE's. It's like an Aguilar DB750, but quicker and more articulate, with a better high end. (With two AE212's, the sound is positively explosive.)

I've played both of these amps AWFULLY loud, especially at outdoor gigs, and neither has sounded like it's pushing hard at all. One may be "more powerful" than the other, but it would take someone who plays very inefficient cabinets or at "seismic" levels to find that out. The weight and price definitely favor the ShuttleMAX, but the TFB's not particularly heavy, has a truly GREAT on-board compressor, and the 2 ohm capability is great to have.

A more meaningful difference between these amps may be the degree of "sizzle" that you're looking for. The ShuttleMAX is voiced pretty much the same as the Shuttle 9.0. The Thunderfunk is voiced a little darker (although the Timbre control can brighten the sound considerably). If you're looking for pure punch, the TFB is hard to beat. If you love the highs of the Shuttle 9.0, the ShuttleMAX might be more up-your-alley.

Lots of IME and IMO, but YMMV!

[Tankdave]

Might be worth mentioning the Cabs I'm running? Two 112 (neo) powered Vanderkleys, pretty flat & deep by all accounts. I'm not totally into a super-bright sound as I usually turn off the tweeters. I'm more interested in clarity and a smooth bottom end that reproduces low-B's etc. to great definition.

The Shuttle 9 does this very well compared to my MarkBass amp, but as already mentioned the mids are bland and lacking in adjustment.

Thanks for the help, but it's looking like a draw so far?

[KJung]

Originally Posted by gregbackstrom

I regularly gig both the Thunderfunk TFB800-B2 and the GB ShuttleMAX 9.2. I certainly agree that the 9.2 is a much more flexible amp than the Shuttle 9.0. I don't agree that the ShuttleMAX has "WAY more slam" than the Thunderfunk. Both of these amps slam really hard in different ways. I prefer the ShuttleMAX with Thunderchild and fEARful cabs because of the tightly-controlled low end. However, there's a certain punch I get with the Thunderfunk and Bergantino AE's. It's like an Aguilar DB750, but quicker and more articulate, with a better high end. (With two AE212's, the sound is positively explosive.)

I've played both of these amps AWFULLY loud, especially at outdoor gigs, and neither has sounded like it's pushing hard at all. One may be "more powerful" than the other, but it would take someone who plays very inefficient cabinets or at "seismic" levels to find that out. The weight and price definitely favor the ShuttleMAX, but the TFB's not particularly heavy, has a truly GREAT on-board compressor, and the 2 ohm capability is great to have.

A more meaningful difference between these amps may be the degree of "sizzle" that you're looking for. The ShuttleMAX is voiced pretty much the same as the Shuttle 9.0. The Thunderfunk is voiced a little darker (although the Timbre control can brighten the sound considerably). If you're looking for pure punch, the TFB is hard to beat. If you love the highs of the Shuttle 9.0, the ShuttleMAX might be more up-your-alley.

Lots of IME and IMO, but YMMV!

+1 on the voicing. However, he's talking about the TH600, not the 800.

[gregbackstrom]

Originally Posted by Tankdave

Might be worth mentioning the Cabs I'm running? Two 112 (neo) powered Vanderkleys, pretty flat & deep by all accounts. I'm not totally into a super-bright sound as I usually turn off the tweeters. I'm more interested in clarity and a smooth bottom end that reproduces low-B's etc. to great definition.

The Shuttle 9 does this very well compared to my MarkBass amp, but as already mentioned the mids are bland and lacking in adjustment.

Thanks for the help, but it's looking like a draw so far?

Well, "clarity" and "smooth bottom" describe the Shuttles and ShuttleMAX pretty well. I've had two Shuttle 9.0's, a Shuttle 6.0 and still have a Shuttle 3.0-10T. My ShuttleMAX 9.2 is definitely more flexible and seems more powerful to me than these others.

OTOH, if you find the Shuttle 9.0's mid to be "bland," I'm not sure you'll find the ShuttleMAX to be that different, even with more EQ flexibility. Generally, I find all the Shuttles to be a bit on the "clinical" side. (Since I favor a pretty clean sound, that's a good thing for me.)

Both are great amps. I think you'd want to try the Thunderfunk with those cabinets to see if you like the way they sound together. If you can't do that, the safer, (and cheaper and lighter) bet is probably going to be the ShuttleMAX.

[gregbackstrom]

Originally Posted by KJung

+1 on the voicing. However, he's talking about the TH600, not the 800.

True -- I was really responding to you with that comment.

[dmrogers]

Tough problem to have, deciding between such great gear. We have many fine choices today.

It would be nice to try the heads out. You never know until YOU play them, adjust the EQ, try different settings, and compare.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Thunderfunk. You don't know what you are missing until you try it. It is not a micro, and it is built on a technology platform that has been around for a long time. But it just works!

When I purchased my last head, I was so close to buying without playing, however I had a business trip to Atlanta and checked out four heads at Atlanta Bass Gallery. I ended up with the head I was originally leaning toward, however I had the opportunity to try each one on my list. Either one would have done the job. They were each different but very nice. The ultimate winner just had that something.............


Good luck!

[Tankdave]

I wish I could try a TFB, but zero chance of that in the UK. I would have to order one blind direct from the states.

[eeyorebass]

I'd like to resurrect this thread to see if there are any more opinions. There are a few Thunderfunks in the classifieds right now, and the shuttles have been out a while longer.

Specifically, I'm interested in the ShuttleMax 9.2 vs the Thunderfunk. My cab is a Baer ML112 and I play 4 string, passive jazzes.

Thanks.

[JOME77]

Originally Posted by eeyorebass

I'd like to resurrect this thread to see if there are any more opinions. There are a few Thunderfunks in the classifieds right now, and the shuttles have been out a while longer.

Specifically, I'm interested in the ShuttleMax 9.2 vs the Thunderfunk. My cab is a Baer ML112 and I play 4 string, passive jazzes.

Thanks.

Probably a little late to reply on this (you've probably already purchased one or the other amps) but I gigged around 4-5 years with Thunderfunk 420 & 550 A & B amps and then more recently gigged for the past 3 years with a GB Shuttlemax 9.2 amp.
With both heads, my favorite cabinets by far were the Berg HT-112 and HT-112 ER cabinets. The Berg 112 really pairs well together with both amps. And I love how my Roscoe basses sound through both amps and the Berg' 112.

Both great sounding heads and very reliable. The Thunderfunk sounds much more compressed in the lows and highs and are voiced a bit more to my liking in the mids.
The GB SM 9,2 has a much more open sound. More glassy highs also and a bit more tubey sounding with the tube channel.

Contrary to what some folks on the forum say the GB SM 9.2 wasn't a louder sounding head IMO. As a matter of fact, I found that once the GB SM head master was turned past 5 it didn't get really noticeably louder, where as with the TFunk 550B the volume seemed to still increase a good bit past 5. It may have had more to do with the fact that I was using Berg 112 cabinets, and usually a single one, which loaded the amp at 8 ohms.
I actually only purchased the Genz Benz SM 9.2 after not being able to find a good used Thunderfunk 550B but since I keep it and used it for 3 years I'd say that I must have really enjoyed playing through it.
I did recently pull out the TFunk 420 at church though, when I was too lazy to bring my GB head, and was instantly reminded of why I loved it for so many years. While the GB SM 9.2 had a more pleasing solo tone, when the band kick in there's just nothing like a Thunderfunk! The compressed lows blend so well with the bass drum kick and the natural mids really allow you to hear yourself so well in the mix.

To cut to the chase, a few months ago I sold the GB SM 9.2 and found a really minty Thunderfunk 550B and as much as I love the churches TFB 420 the additional headroom of the 550B is so much better.

I could definitely gig with a GB Suttlemax 9.2 but given my choice I much prefer the Thunderfunk.

[BFunk]

Not my experience. I had the 550B and now have a GB SM9.2. I am currently running through a fearful 15/6/1. My experience with the 550B is terrific mids, shy low-end, especially when pushed, and not much highs. The GB has much better lows, and highs. The mids can go anywhere the TF went and more. The best way, IMO, to use the SM9.2 is to set mix the two preamps. Set up the FET channel to taste and then add in the tube channel to add mid-range bite and sparkle. The FET channel on the GB has is easily more punchy the the TF, and with fuller range. In short the GB is an awesome amp.

Originally Posted by JOME77

Probably a little late to reply on this (you've probably already purchased one or the other amps) but I gigged around 4-5 years with Thunderfunk 420 & 550 A & B amps and then more recently gigged for the past 3 years with a GB Shuttlemax 9.2 amp.
With both heads, my favorite cabinets by far were the Berg HT-112 and HT-112 ER cabinets. The Berg 112 really pairs well together with both amps. And I love how my Roscoe basses sound through both amps and the Berg' 112.

Both great sounding heads and very reliable. The Thunderfunk sounds much more compressed in the lows and highs and are voiced a bit more to my liking in the mids.
The GB SM 9,2 has a much more open sound. More glassy highs also and a bit more tubey sounding with the tube channel.

Contrary to what some folks on the forum say the GB SM 9.2 wasn't a louder sounding head IMO. As a matter of fact, I found that once the GB SM head master was turned past 5 it didn't get really noticeably louder, where as with the TFunk 550B the volume seemed to still increase a good bit past 5. It may have had more to do with the fact that I was using Berg 112 cabinets, and usually a single one, which loaded the amp at 8 ohms.
I actually only purchased the Genz Benz SM 9.2 after not being able to find a good used Thunderfunk 550B but since I keep it and used it for 3 years I'd say that I must have really enjoyed playing through it.
I did recently pull out the TFunk 420 at church though, when I was too lazy to bring my GB head, and was instantly reminded of why I loved it for so many years. While the GB SM 9.2 had a more pleasing solo tone, when the band kick in there's just nothing like a Thunderfunk! The compressed lows blend so well with the bass drum kick and the natural mids really allow you to hear yourself so well in the mix.

To cut to the chase, a few months ago I sold the GB SM 9.2 and found a really minty Thunderfunk 550B and as much as I love the churches TFB 420 the additional headroom of the 550B is so much better.

I could definitely gig with a GB Suttlemax 9.2 but given my choice I much prefer the Thunderfunk.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by BFunk

Not my experience. I had the 550B and now have a GB SM9.2. I am currently running through a fearful 15/6/1. My experience with the 550B is terrific mids, shy low-end, especially when pushed, and not much highs. The GB has much better lows, and highs. The mids can go anywhere the TF went and more. The best way, IMO, to use the SM9.2 is to set mix the two preamps. Set up the FET channel to taste and then add in the tube channel to add mid-range bite and sparkle. The FET channel on the GB has is easily more punchy the the TF, and with fuller range. In short the GB is an awesome amp.

Both great heads, both sound very different (although easier to EQ the Max 9.2 close to the Thunderfunk than the other way around.

The idea that the 550b (which I gigged for quite a while) matches the volume of the Max 9.2 is a bit confusing to me. HOWEVER, if you like that compression in the low end of the Thunderfunk 500b when pushed, then I guess I could see it. That was death for me after a while.

Both are great, and the 750 (and I assume 800) have more low end extension and less compression than the 550b. Of course, that strong midrange voicing, the relaxed top end, and that low end compression were part of the charm of that amp, which IMO is a classic.

Also, per the post above, the setting of the master volume knob means nothing when comparing two amps. Different tapers, preamp gain structure, etc. result in the maximum volume/output of different amps to widely vary with regards to the actual physical setting of the master volume pot.

Hard to go wrong with either of these, and both have a pretty strong tone profile (per your description).

Edit: +1 in that the Max 9.2 seems MADE for the fEARful cabs. My favorite head with the 15/6 I had for a while. Perfect EQ, nice power and power management at 8ohms, nice EQ to punch up the low end and also to smooth the rather rough top end of that mid driver, and the variable hi pass/low boost filter is very useful. REALLY great match-up there!).

[nordyboy]

Streamliner 900 sounds amazing with those Vanderkley cabs..... Worth a demo maybe?