TecAmp amplification club.....is there such a thing yet - Page 52

bassmanfreddo · #**1021** 02-03-2013, 09:15 AM

I remember when Tec was Tech Bassline, great sound...terrible reliability. Hopefully that aspect has been remedied.

Bmorefoozler · #**1022** 02-03-2013, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Johnson

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.

Since this thread is about to be replaced....

IT would take a lot of hand wringing and backwards engineering to sufficiently engineer this to work correctly.

Increased excursion has the tradeoff of reduced sensitivity. Larger cones, all else being equal, yield higher sensitivity. So to have a pair fo 10's that are AS LOUD and have similar enough power handling to a pair of 12's, then the 10's would have to be engineered with larger Xmax and MUCH stronger motors. In this instance it would be a very backwards thinking that the 10's would be providing lows while the 12's produced the mids. Very odd, but possible. I'll grant you that.

But based on Ken's comments of TecAmp's Neo Cab lineup, the 10's and 12's are very similar tonally, it's just that the 12's are far louder. THIS is why I thought it was n odd combination.

Phasing, and Dispersion can be a very minor point for some peopels situations, so I'm not even going there.

I was never very hard on the LIL G as other techie types were. I understand that the bottom woofer is contributing greatly below 500 hz and that is where the MEAT of a bass tone is, while also being where power and excursion requirements are greatest. The schroeder cabs, IME, have that odd boxy tone because the mid-mids and upper mids are NOT filtered out by physical placement. I think the Lil G is a much more effective and well thought out design.
A Slap G with a high Xmax downfiring woofer and a pair of front facing tens that are punch monsters also makes some sense to me.
Transmission lines are well accepted as a compromise between sealed and Ported. Sort of half the benefits of each. Cool design.

In my teenage years I always wondered why when playing through the typical 410/115 stack I felt the need to stay motionless 5-10 feet DIRECTLY in front of the stack. Everytime I got moving even a few steps off to the side I instantly couldn't hear myself basically at all. After reading on this forum many posts from BFM, Duke, etc, I now understand the reasons(1 big one is that It placed me much closer to the "firing range" from the guitar stacks laser beams). I'm glad to have learned something here from those more knowledgable then myself.

I'll now stop polluting the TecAmp thread. Apologies.

diglo · #**1023** 02-03-2013, 10:33 AM

Anybody using a Bonafide?

Saluki · #**1024** 02-04-2013, 07:42 AM

Puma 900 - "out for delivery". Wow starting to feel a little ill here at work.

**Stephent28** · #**1025** 02-04-2013, 09:44 AM

Good choice Saluki.
I am sure you will love it!

Brad Johnson · #**1026** 02-04-2013, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bmorefoozler

Since this thread is about to be replaced....

IT would take a lot of hand wringing and backwards engineering to sufficiently engineer this to work correctly.

Increased excursion has the tradeoff of reduced sensitivity. Larger cones, all else being equal, yield higher sensitivity. So to have a pair fo 10's that are AS LOUD and have similar enough power handling to a pair of 12's, then the 10's would have to be engineered with larger Xmax and MUCH stronger motors. In this instance it would be a very backwards thinking that the 10's would be providing lows while the 12's produced the mids. Very odd, but possible. I'll grant you that.

But based on Ken's comments of TecAmp's Neo Cab lineup, the 10's and 12's are very similar tonally, it's just that the 12's are far louder. THIS is why I thought it was n odd combination.

Phasing, and Dispersion can be a very minor point for some peopels situations, so I'm not even going there.

I was never very hard on the LIL G as other techie types were. I understand that the bottom woofer is contributing greatly below 500 hz and that is where the MEAT of a bass tone is, while also being where power and excursion requirements are greatest. The schroeder cabs, IME, have that odd boxy tone because the mid-mids and upper mids are NOT filtered out by physical placement. I think the Lil G is a much more effective and well thought out design.
A Slap G with a high Xmax downfiring woofer and a pair of front facing tens that are punch monsters also makes some sense to me.
Transmission lines are well accepted as a compromise between sealed and Ported. Sort of half the benefits of each. Cool design.

In my teenage years I always wondered why when playing through the typical 410/115 stack I felt the need to stay motionless 5-10 feet DIRECTLY in front of the stack. Everytime I got moving even a few steps off to the side I instantly couldn't hear myself basically at all. After reading on this forum many posts from BFM, Duke, etc, I now understand the reasons(1 big one is that It placed me much closer to the "firing range" from the guitar stacks laser beams). I'm glad to have learned something here from those more knowledgable then myself.

I'll now stop polluting the TecAmp thread. Apologies.

Thanks for the insight.

Robin Ruscio · #**1027** 02-04-2013, 07:22 PM

My puma should be here tomorrow if I catch FedEx as well. Got some meetings for my day job so I might not get it till Wednesday.

Robin Ruscio · #**1028** 02-05-2013, 09:45 PM

Wow, this thing is very punchy! Tight bottom. I can't wait for a gig this weekend.

Ill have to a/b it with my Epifani 502 tomorrow.

TheButlerdidit · #**1029** 02-06-2013, 08:37 AM

Just FYI, If anyone is considering selling their Puma 500 or 900 or even selling their MarkBass F500. I would like to buy it.

Saluki · #**1030** 02-08-2013, 07:30 AM

Finally got to try the Puma-ML112(x2) in the mix last night. Medium size church, big stage and nice FOH. I set everything flat except the taste was slightly right of noon and gain was slightly left of noon. Plugged in my Skjold and had a great tone. Nice warm, organic middy tone. Didn't have the low end boosted on the skjold so the low end was present but huge.

Sounded great when just me, the drummer and guitar player were jamming. Once the mixes were set and it got a bit more crowded I was struggling a bit so I rolled the taste back to about 11 and boosted the low mid to about 1. The taste button could be called warm control as far as I am concerned. Rolling it counterclockwise just a bit helped the cleared the mids up and help cut through the mix.

I had previously been using my M6 and then the STM 900 post eq

to FOH. The FOH guys were used to adjusting that signal so when I gave them a pre signal from the Puma 900, they cam up to the stage and said something is missing. I said I was giving them a pre signal so I suggested we go post with a bit of bass boost on the puma and then he could eq from there. The low end boost to about 1 with those baers was fantastic for my mix. I was stacking them vertical so that added low end help fill my mix and FOH. The FOH guy must have eq'd whatever else he needed because at the end of the night the mix sound great. A great guitar player and fellow tone junky texted me "your new bass rig SPANKS, bro! Awesome!", which says a lot coming from him.

Didn't have any problems with grounding over the 2.5 hours, but the Puma 900 runs warmer than what I am used to. Not hot to touch at all, but warm. I checked it several times throughout the night. Volume was between 8 and 9 all night.

So with all things considered, i.e. weight, power, tone, features, useable eq this is my favorite amp (I've tried a lot!) Just need some time with it to build up my confidence level with it.

KJung · #**1031** 02-08-2013, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saluki

Didn't have any problems with grounding over the 2.5 hours, but the Puma 900 runs warmer than what I am used to. Not hot to touch at all, but warm. I checked it several times throughout the night. Volume was between 8 and 9 all night.

So with all things considered, i.e. weight, power, tone, features, useable eq this is my favorite amp (I've tried a lot!) Just need some time with it to build up my confidence level with it.

Nice. If I remember correctly, the newer Puma models (500/900) do not have any active cooling (fans). So, they must be using the chassis as a heat sink. That would result in the amp (especially the 900 run at 4ohms in that very small box) to feel a bit warm when pushed. I would think that is normal, and am not aware of any shutdowns, etc. at this point from other TBers who use these amps.

Also, the Puma's use some sort of 'fixed ground lift' or some sort of design that results in a 'ground lift switch' being redundant. Never had an issue with that with my original Puma500. Not sure of the exact circuitry they use, but it seems to work great.

larryelwood · #**1032** 02-08-2013, 02:03 PM

Subscribed.. again! New Puma 500 coming in a little over a week i hope.

Virgil · #**1033** 02-09-2013, 10:37 PM

I don't have a Puma, but my Black Jag was killer tonight. I used it with a Glasstone LIL G, and they took me out of the FOH, saying my rig sounded better. Played 2 and a half hours and the amp never got hot. The cab is 4ohm and I ran it at 10:00 all night. Really digging my TecAmp gear.

nostatic · #**1034** 02-09-2013, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saluki

Sounded great when just me, the drummer and guitar player were jamming. Once the mixes were set and it got a bit more crowded I was struggling a bit so I rolled the taste back to about 11 and boosted the low mid to about 1. The taste button could be called warm control as far as I am concerned. Rolling it counterclockwise just a bit helped the cleared the mids up and help cut through the mix.

I usually add a bit of hi-mid in a busy mix. That can help give a bit of cut so that I can hear what I'm doing. That said, depends on the bass and cab and with the ML112 I haven't had to do that. Lately I've just been turning up instead

UpwardGroove · #**1035** 02-10-2013, 06:44 AM

My current setup is the Streamliner 900 with a pair of AE210 Verticals. I play a P bass with flats and a J bass with rounds (both passive instruments). I'm happy with my rig, but I'm wanting to add a solid state amp to get a deep, punchy, articulate tone.

I'm looking for input on the tonal differences between the Puma 900 and the ShuttleMax 9.2. I know the SM 9.2 has a more versatile EQ, a bigger box, two channels (FET and tube) and a lower price (especially used). I don't particularly need the massive EQ of the SM 9.2.

Focusing on my tone goals (deep, punchy, articulate), what do you gain with the Puma 900 over the SM 9.2???

I'm also hoping someone out there might have experience with these amps paired with the AE210.

KJung · #**1036** 02-10-2013, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpwardGroove

My current setup is the Streamliner 900 with a pair of AE210 Verticals. I play a P bass with flats and a J bass with rounds (both passive instruments). I'm happy with my rig, but I'm wanting to add a solid state amp to get a deep, punchy, articulate tone.

I'm looking for input on the tonal differences between the Puma 900 and the ShuttleMax 9.2. I know the SM 9.2 has a more versatile EQ, a bigger box, two channels (FET and tube) and a lower price (especially used). I don't particularly need the massive EQ of the SM 9.2.

Focusing on my tone goals (deep, punchy, articulate), what do you gain with the Puma 900 over the SM 9.2???

I'm also hoping someone out there might have experience with these amps paired with the AE210.

You have already listed the advantages of the Max 9.2. What you get with the Puma900 is a bit bigger low end, a bit cleaner up top, and an almost hard to believe size and weight.

You can get quite close to the Puma tone using the FET channel and powerful EQ of the 9.2, but you can't make it micro sized.

UpwardGroove · #**1037** 02-10-2013, 11:04 AM

Thanks, KJung. I always appreciate your input.

Saluki · #**1038** 02-10-2013, 03:21 PM

Agree with KJ on the comparison. Really dig the SM9.2 and powerful eq which can get you close tonally to the puma 900. Out of the box and both straight up the puma 900 is warmer and the sm9.2 is more sterile, but start turning knobs on the sm9.2 and a lot of tones in there. The puma can get more sterile sounding by turning the taste knob counterclockwise or warmer going clockwise. Another thing you get with the puma is the simplicity. Sounds killer straight up and not a lot knob twisting required. Pretty sure I never been happier with my tone with the puma baer combo.

UpwardGroove · #**1039** 02-10-2013, 06:55 PM

You're giving me something to think about, Saluki. The size difference doesn't matter much to me. I've got a shot at a barely used 9.2 for $550 here locally. If I can get the tone I'm after with a little knob turning at less than half the price, that may be good enough for my needs. On the other hand, warmer with less knob turning sounds pretty good...

Virgil · #**1040** 02-11-2013, 01:06 PM

Did anyone notice that Genz Benz was a no show at NAMM? Word is that Fender, who has left them alone for 4 years, is going to have them move from Arizona to their factory in California. Dealers aren't receiving any updates on new models. Looks as though they may be a thing of the past. Stay tuned. I wouldn't invest too much money into anything Genz Benz until Fender decides what they are going to do with them.