Genz Benz Shuttle 6.2 vs. 9.0 vs. 9.2

Discussion in 'Amps [BG]' started by DavePlaysBass, Jul 8, 2012.


  1. DavePlaysBass

    DavePlaysBass Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    CO
    I have been reading way too many TB threads on Genz Benz. After viewing the Ed Friedland video, I am trying to sort thru the options

    !

    I am looking for somthing easy and compact (like the 6.2 112 combo) that can do the occasional loud performance with PA support. And of course still kicks butt. :bassist:

    I really like the 6.2 112 form factor and the Ed video really gets the GAS juices flowing. At first, I didn't think the new tube gain in the 6.2 would be all the useful until he pulled out jazz bass with old strings and went old school. I think the tube gain would be a nice to have.

    At the end he pulled out the 9.2 and the lows on that thing sounds even bigger. Anyone A/B the 6.2 and 9.2? I really don't have the extra cash for a 9.2 but I could hear an improvement on the video. Not sure how real that is in real life though.

    One perspective I have on the 6.2 vs. the 9.2 is that the 6.2 will go into the new multiband "3D" limiting sooner which is described as tubey. This might actually be an advantage to the 6.2 if the volumes are not super high and the tubey limiting is a nice sound. Anyone share this thought? And if matching the 6.2 to the 112 cab, it seems you could push the crap out of the whole setup and theoretically you shouldn't have to worry about frying the speakers. I kind of like that piece of mind espeically with the quality and customer service reports from GB.

    And then you have all the nicely priced old stock 9.0s out there. Before watching Ed's video, I was leaning that way but I am thinking that tube gain would be a nice feature along with the piece of mind that the 6.2 is matched to the 112 cabinet with a multiband limiter.

    Anyone have a strong argument for the 210 combo option (6.2-210). Presently I have three cabs (GK Neo 115-iii, Aggie GS112, Avatar B210 neo). And I like the 210 the least, but I realize I shouldn't swear off 210s because of not liking that one. But I am thinking about flipping the 210 and keeping the 115 or 112 for extension use with the 6.2-112. I can count on one hand the number of times a year I need two cabinets. But I like full tone which is what attracted me to the GK neo 115 which to me is a great stand alone. But I would love to pick up with one hand a combo that kicks butt.

    And lastly, I am thinking about trading the GK MB500 sounds for a go at GB. I have been playing this micro head for a few years now which I like but just don't love the sound of. I used to love the sound of my EBS head but I couldn't always get it to cut thru. The GK sounds good in a thunderous sort of way, but it just doesn't provide the articualte clarity I am hearing in my head. I am thinking the solid state GB may with the nice front end tube warmth is my next stop... We'll see. Thanks.
  2. Jim Carr

    Jim Carr Dr. Jim Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Location:
    Denton, TX or Kailua, HI
    Disclosures:
    Union card-carrying liberal academic musician
    Since a good cab 112 or 210 can weigh about 35 lbs (my UL210, for example), how is dropping a 4 lb 600+ watt head into your gig bag pocket or a shoulder bag more onerous?

    IMHO, having a great an under 40 lbs cab is better than the lightest combo, because I can decide if I want the Shuttle, the GK MB800, an M9, or a lead sled with a couple of racked preamps, all based on what I want and need—it is a rehearsal, a jazz gig with upright, live bluegrass show, etc.?

    A combo just lacks the compactness, flexibility, light weight, and transportability of a micro + cab. All IMHO.


    I use both a Shuttle 6.0, and a GK MB800. They are both great, and I can get the sounds I want out of either one, though the GK MB800 is the new kid on my block.
  3. DavePlaysBass

    DavePlaysBass Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    CO

    I agree with you. What Genz Benz calls a combo really is two seperates. And it looks as though the new 12T series 2 is on par with the seperate 112s out there. I am dreaming of the day when I can pick up something in one hand and move it out to the back porch or wherever and just plug in.

    I was at GC for 2 hours on the 4th of July with the intention of bringing how a GK MB115 combo. I also checked out the new TC Electronics combo and a Markbass combo. That is when I realized I didn't want any of them. My seperate GK cab (Neo115-iii) sounds a lot better than the GK 115 combo at least to my ears. The MB115 combo had big lows and lots of sizzle but seemed to lack midrange warmth which is what I think I am after. The TC Electronics was OK. The treble knob didn't work and overdrive and chorus didn't do a thing for me. And the MB was very high priced for a very small 112 combo that sounded small.


    I hear you. I am not trying to bash GK. I really am being picky here but I am just not loving my GK sound at this point. I have had problems controlling the boom in some lower volume gigs. And I have cut low mids and lows with the countour on zero and I just can't seem to find a great mid volume sound.

    Also, the DI does not seem as good as the EBS one I am used too. I ended up using the DI in my EBS HD350 head at a lower volume gig because I had the HD350 as a backup. Thats a pretty hefty carry for a DI.

    We'll see if the GAS passes. Sometimes these ideas fade away before I spend the money... ;)
  4. KJung

    KJung

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Location:
    Wisconsin and Upper Michigan
    i was lucky enough to be able to review the new Shuttle 6.2 112 with extension cab when it was first released. Amazing upgrade to the original.

    To me, the 6.2, 9.2 and 9.0 all sound VERY much the same. However, the 6.2 is a big change form the original 6.0 (more low end). While the '.2' Shuttles have a few other changes (a revised power management section that provides a bit more open ooomph when pushed, a nice, subtle reviocing of the voicing buttons that makes them a bit less extreme, and hence a bit more useful, and a touch more gain that allows for more overdrive capability for those who have low output basses), the BIG impact is the 6.0 to 6.2, where the entire voicing of the head was changed.

    Basically, now the 6.2 is a 'lower powered 9.2', versus the very different voicing of the original 6 and the original 9.

    The Shuttle 112 cab also was beefed up to handle the increased low end response of the 6.2. Amazing little combo, and the stack will really keep up with most 'full size 212's at this point.

    So, your main choice now is how much power you need between the 6.2 and 9.2, and basically what kind of budget you are on (i.e., there are still Shuttle 9's in the system for very good prices new, and are pretty darn close to the new 9.2).
  5. Register to disable this ad
  6. DavePlaysBass

    DavePlaysBass Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    CO
    Thanks Ken for you nice review. It is what started this latest GAS bubble :).

    I recall reading you went ahead and bought the 9.2 after sending back your test sample to GB. Are you still playing the 9.2 and like it. Also, do you hear a difference between the 9.2 and the 6.2 at lower to mid volumes? The Friedland video seemed to indicate there would be more lows.

    Also curious if you kicked the 6.2 into its limiting much when you tested it. Was this a "cool" artifact kind of like the GK heads with the Class G amp stage that jump back and forth between the rails. Many people comment on how they like the sound of the GK heads switching between the high voltage and low voltage rails. Not that this is the same thing but compression of the lows in a tube like fashion could be a desirable attribute more easily obtained with a lower wattage head (assuming its not too low a volume when it kicks in).

    If I am going for the series 2 or 12T shuttle or Neox 112 cab (both rated 300Wrms), would the added headroom of the 9.0 really be all that useful? From what I read the GB watts may not be all that loud.
  7. MichaelVee

    MichaelVee Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Location:
    Knox, Knox, who's there?
    I am considering the 6.2/1x12 combo, but can't decide between the combo with the head mount, and the straight 1x12 cabinet with a separate head. The combo mount eliminates the problem with the head not setting on all four feet on top of the cabinet strap. But the combo cabinet has a built-in speaker cable - it does not have a plate with a speakon connector. Also, a cover maker would have a harder time making a cover that fits over the cabinet and the head in the mount, as opposed to just the straight cabinet. So these are just practical considerations, not really relevant to the OP's questions about the power output of the 6.2 vs. the 9.2. If anyone has any thoughts about the combo vs. the separates, I'd like to hear them.

    For what it's worth, I have owned the 6.0 head and currently have the 9.0. Although they are voiced differently, there is not much obvious difference between the max volume of the 6.0 and the 9.0, at least not with a single speaker or even two. I believe it would be very apparent, however, if you were running multiple speakers, say a 4x10, 4x10/1x15, or 2 4x10s. There, you'd have more cone area and power handling, and could push the volume higher with bass boost than with a single driver. I couldn't tell much difference between the two heads with a single driver.

    The 6.0 had a higher bass roll-off, so you could push that head harder before it started distressing any speaker it was connected to, vs. the 9.0, which has less roll-of and causes more cone excursion. With the 6.2 and the 9.2, they have identical roll-off/HPF curves, but then both have the 3DPM, which should afford some degree of speaker protection in and of itself as it is limiting the lows as the amp is hitting peak output. That's assuming the speakers that are connected to the heads can take 600 or 900 watts to start with.

Share This Page