TecAmp amplification club.....is there such a thing yet

[Bmorefoozler]

Originally Posted by Brad Johnson

This as far as I can tell is ALL theoretical. No offense. So none of these are really obvious unless you have something factual to base it on. I haven't seen any details to the contrary. That's the trap so many people fall into here on TB.

The twelves don't have to be louder per watt... that's assuming they're similar versions of the ten.

The twelves could be designed to stress before the tens.

Prone to blowing tens based on what?

Twelves can't run out of steam before tens?

For all we know this cab could have six chambers, high xmax tens, ceramic twelves, a five way crossover, composite baffles and so on. My point is that we don't know.

You are correct, that it is possible that TecAmp went to that extent to ensure a safety margin for their cab design. That said, the other theoretical reasons would likely stop someone willing to put in that kind of design effort from making this cab.
I am absolutely, without seeing or hearing the cab GUESSING that it is a bunch of speakers thrown in a convenient box size. A loudspeaker enginner would simply NOT create a box like this.

[tombowlus]

Here are some pics of that new 2x10/2x12 "Virtue Cab" ("Virtual Cab" would make more sense, auf English). It sounded great, and was actually fairly light!

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Saluki

Lot of cab talk here, but I just think this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eimc4j-4la0
sounds really good. Are these the new 12" cabs with the Puma 900?

Those look like XS112 cabs with the new grille. I ran those for awhile - nice cabs depending on what tone you're going for. Stupid light (25lbs), excellent midrange detail. They don't extend very deep and running a pair, while it gets you a ton of volume, doesn't give you a lot more booty.

I also had an S212 for awhile which I didn't dig as I found it to be a bit wooly in the low mids. I also had an M212 which is a freakin' awesome cabinet. I prefer a modular setup though, so I sold it and run a pair of Baer ML112s (usually only need one). I still have Puma 900 and 500 heads though - those aren't going anywhere. Only head I've played that I thought might have an edge is the new Baer Valkyrie prototype, but I'm spoiled by the Puma size/weight/sound combination.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by Bmorefoozler

You are correct, that it is possible that TecAmp went to that extent to ensure a safety margin for their cab design. That said, the other theoretical reasons would likely stop someone willing to put in that kind of design effort from making this cab.
I am absolutely, without seeing or hearing the cab GUESSING that it is a bunch of speakers thrown in a convenient box size. A loudspeaker enginner would simply NOT create a box like this.

Cool. I don't know Sekou's background, I am glad that we're seeing more outside of the box thinking. While they might not be optimal on paper, if they kill for your application, who cares? As if good enough isn't.

Again, we don't know specifically what this cab entails so how could you know what a designer would do? That's still assumption based.

I can easily see someone putting effort in on a cab selling for $1600.

I gravitated away from the usual suspects, I use a very unconventional Lil G 212 cab, transmission line older EA VL110 cabs and a few mixed cab rigs vs. the status quo and I wouldn't trade any of them for what others "think" are "better".


Actual I know several who would care despite the owner's satisfaction.

[Stephent28]

Getting back to the Lil'G (which this thread is about)..........

I currently own the following and power them with a PUMA 900 (except the Mesa):

fEARful 12/6/1 and 12/sub stack
Mesa Walkabout 12 Scout with 12 cab stack
Glasstone Lil'G

They all work extremely well and they can all rock hard.

The Lil'G costs between 1/2 to 2/3 of the other two mentioned above and holds it own without any need for apology.
Lately it has been the cab I grab whenever I go to my weekly gigs.
I have never been disappointed.

[4-string]

Originally Posted by Stephent28

Getting back to the Lil'G (which this thread is about)..........

I thought this was the Tecamp amplification club.

Seems like the Puma 900 is still the top contender. I would really love to get the Black Jag 900, but can't justify the extra cost. Besides, the real micro format is so nice.

[Stephent28]

Originally Posted by 4-string

I thought this was the Tecamp amplification club.

Seems like the Puma 900 is still the top contender. I would really love to get the Black Jag 900, but can't justify the extra cost. Besides, the real micro format is so nice.

Yikes....my bad. That's what I get for reading too many subscribed threads back to back late at night.....at least I mentioned my Puma 900!

[monsterthompson]

Originally Posted by 4-string

I thought this was the Tecamp amplification club.

Seems like the Puma 900 is still the top contender. I would really love to get the Black Jag 900, but can't justify the extra cost. Besides, the real micro format is so nice.

I love my Jag, but I'll admit, the extra cot over the Puma vs the additional features and benefits is tough to justify.

[caligula]

Since this is the Tecamp club, it must be the right place for me.
I've been gigging the Aggie DB750 for years now and still like it a lot. Especially when things get loud there's headroom and power for days, plus the warmth and growl is something I really enjoy (not the best slap tone, I admit that).

However, I'm looking for a 2nd amp for my medium gigs (regarding size & volume) as the Aggie seems like complete overkill half the time; besides, the weight can be annoying at times.
I have the Eden WT400, which is simply not loud enough, so I'm thinking about the Puma or Black Jag.
I could get the 500 watts models, second hand, decent price.
It's probably hard to tell, but would either of those be appropritae to replace the DB750 for a "normal" gig (dance, party, cover, sometimes originals, mostly with PA support)?

[nostatic]

Puma 500 works fine, and you can get part of the DB tone using the taste control (though it isn't the same). I moved from a TH500 (and a bunch of other stuff) to Puma 500.

[Robin Ruscio]

Hey Ken,

I really appreciate all your insights on the cabs and everything here. Keep it up. It's challenging some of my assumptions and thinking about amplification and since you've actually heard much of what is out there I have a sense that your insights are really beneficial to many of us to get us away from the old-school thinking That was too formulaic.

I could never get that 4 10 and 115 combo to sound good myself anyway, Even though it was perfect on paper.

[diglo]

Back in the club. Purchased the Bonafide I tried out a couple of months ago. Still love the tecamp sound and size.

[Virgil]

A few postings ago. Someone asked "why would anyone buy a M210.?" They said the S212 or the M212 gives you all the 210 has, plus it is loud as hell. I almost took that advice. However when I was at Mike Tobias' shop, the M210 was his reference cabinet, and I loved the way it sounded. I recently purchased the cab, and it is killer. It's punchy, fat, bright...it's all there. Just think, I almost ignored my own ears. As for the Black Jag, I love it. I don't know whether I will utilize all of its' features. But it is better to have and not need, than need and not have. All I can say is that it sounds great, weighs close to nothing and has headroom for days.

[moretolife]

I’m glad to see that some people are still using their ear and not just specs or what some “authority” tells them what they should or should not like. TB’ers still need to remember that music is about the ears first.

[MKA]

Originally Posted by moretolife

I’m glad to see that some people are still using their ear and not just specs or what some “authority” tells them what they should or should not like. TB’ers still need to remember that music is about the ears first.

I could not agree more!!! I much prefer listening to music than reading about it on paper.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by moretolife

I’m glad to see that some people are still using their ear and not just specs or what some “authority” tells them what they should or should not like. TB’ers still need to remember that music is about the ears first.

This kind of thing makes me tired. Of course use your ears. Sad that some don't want to learn anything new and actually, for some reason, get upset when a well meaning TBer attempts to share a bit of technical information.

Knowing a little bit of why things sound like they sound should in no way define what a player buys. However, it can go a long way to break down myths (like '10's are punchy and 12's are deep) that actually LIMIT player's choices and often end up with the player making a less than optimal decision.

In Virgil's situation, of course that 210 sounds great. My guess is, he didn't have the 212 there to compare to. In the specific case of the TecAmp line, he would have found that the tonality is very similar, the weight is similar, the price is relatively similar, the box is a touch bigger, and the output is significantly louder. Now, if someone is looking for the smallest solution for a low volume gig, a 210 is great (I use a 210 myself in those situation). In the case of TecAmp, their 212 models (at least the neo versions, haven't heard the new ceramics) sound like big, honking, loud as heck 210 cabs

Again, OT again, but gosh almighty, I sometimes feel like Galileo trying to talk the Church fathers into looking into the telescope And again, I am usually on the other side of this argument. When people start to say 'only buy this' due to paper spec's, that is not cool. However, when someone says 'you might want to consider this when buying this piece of gear or that piece', there is no downside to thinking a bit, and sometimes that light bulb will go on, and you MIGHT end up with a smaller rig that sounds and performs better than your big one!

Edit: This thread is at 1015 posts, so a new version will be started, and I will stick to 'all things TecAmp in the next one, since these general discussions are OT. Hopefully a few TBers got some information that allows them to not limit their choices to '410 for funk' and 15's for rock, or thinking they have to include a cab with bigger drivers in a rig to 'get low end', etc.

[MKA]

Originally Posted by KJung

In Virgil's situation, of course that 210 sounds great. My guess is, he didn't have the 212 there to compare to. In the specific case of the TecAmp line, he would have found that the tonality is very similar, the weight is similar, the price is relatively similar, the box is a touch bigger, and the output is significantly louder. Now, if someone is looking for the smallest solution for a low volume gig, a 210 is great (I use a 210 myself in those situation). In the case of TecAmp, their 212 models (at least the neo versions, haven't heard the new ceramics) sound like big, honking, loud as heck 210 cabs

I'm sorry to continue this OT, but in saying that "their 212 models sound like big, honking, loud as heck 210 cabs" you are already admitting that there is a certain way that a cab loaded with certain sized speakers sound like. My only problem with this "speaker size doesn't matter"-discussion is that people that hold on to that argument don't take it all the way.

Enough of this OT with me, back to TecAmp. In anticipation of part II of this thread I confess that I absolutely love my Puma500! Best micro I've heard. And the new cabs look cool as heck!!!

[KJung]

Originally Posted by MKA

I'm sorry to continue this OT, but in saying that "their 212 models sound like big, honking, loud as heck 210 cabs" you are already admitting that there is a certain way that a cab loaded with certain sized speakers sound like. My only problem with this "speaker size doesn't matter"-discussion is that people that hold on to that argument don't take it all the way.

Enough of this OT with me, back to TecAmp. In anticipation of part II of this thread I confess that I absolutely love my Puma500! Best micro I've heard. And the new cabs look cool as heck!!!

Again, as I said, WITHIN THE TECAMP LINE OF CABS, their 12 loaded models sound very tight, very midrange oriented, lots of upper mids, and sound quite similar TO THE 10 LOADED CABS within the same line. More importantly, the 12 loaded cabs within the TecAmp line are MUCH more mid present, punchy, and bright and tight than MANY 410's in other product lines.

EVERY 12" driver sounds different. EVERY 10" driver sounds different. SOME 12" drivers actually are more midrange present than some 10" drivers. SOME 10" drivers are more midrange present than some 12" drivers. SOME 10" drivers have MUCH more low end capability than some 15" drivers.

There is JUST AS MUCH VARIANCE within 10" drivers and 12" drivers versus across those two groups of drivers/cabs.

Trust me, once you understand this, it opens up an amazing number of wonderful options versus the 'I need a 15 cab' or 'I need a 410' for a certain type of tone.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by MKA

Enough of this OT with me, back to TecAmp. In anticipation of part II of this thread I confess that I absolutely love my Puma500! Best micro I've heard. And the new cabs look cool as heck!!!

Back to TecAmp, +1 all the way that the Puma500/900 are among the best sounding and performing amps out there for those who want a clean, relatively accurate, transparent tone. A great example of the lack of correlation these days between weight of head, design of power supply, and performance

While I loved my first generation Puma's, and while the new ones don't sound as glorious in a solo listening situation as the fatter, warmer, cleaner original models, the revoicing to a tighter low end response and a bit more midrange complexity really results in these heads working great in loud, busy mix situations. Great update of this line, and the smaller size and weight is just a bonus!

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by KJung

While I loved my first generation Puma's, and while the new ones don't sound as glorious in a solo listening situation as the fatter, warmer, cleaner original models, the revoicing to a tighter low end response and a bit more midrange complexity really results in these heads working great in loud, busy mix situations.

This is part of the danger of "using your ears". I know you know all too well that lot's of stuff sounds great in the bedroom but lousy on a gig. Over time you can figure out why that is, and it is a mix of things in the signal chain starting with the mind/heart/fingers of the player, to the strings, to the bass, to the amp, to the cabinet, to the room. Your ears are only part of that equation, and understanding each piece of the puzzle helps make the experience of playing (and the band grooving and the audience enjoying) better.

Of course if you only play in your bedroom, then that is one less variable

Conventional wisdom is usually based on a mix of fact and fallacy. A curious mind can help one figure out which is which. And there are exceptions to every rule. Some new things are created so that they are different rather than better. Other things are innovations, but they may not speak to everyone. Technology has changed gear often for the better, sometimes for the novelty. Up to the individual to figure out which is which for them.