Epifani UL-410 VS UL2-310

From what I understand, Musicians Friend is only offering the 8 ohm version of the 410UL at $999, which may or may not be a big deal. If your head puts out 500 watts at 4 ohms, you may only get 300 or so watts into 8 ohms.

To answer your question, if volume isn't a huge concern for you, I say go with the 310UL. I've been using my 310UL with a 500 watt head (first the AMP, then Thunderfunk, and now the LMII) for over a year. I never find myself needing more volume, and I play in a couple really loud groups. The 310UL is a good deal more portable than the 410UL in size, and at 47 lbs the weight is just stupid.

If you're playing alot of really loud gigs without PA support, then the extra volume of the 410UL would be nice to have. If not (and it doesn't sound like it based on your post) the 310UL will definitely get the job done!

vision said:

The 310UL is a good deal more portable than the 410UL in size, and at 47 lbs the weight is just stupid.

If you're playing alot of really loud gigs without PA support, then the extra volume of the 410UL would be nice to have. If not (and it doesn't sound like it based on your post) the 310UL will definitely get the job done!

Click to expand...

I agree mostly. I have both UL310 and UL410, also usually with a TF head. The UL410 is an inch or so bigger in each dimension, so it's not *that* much bigger than the UL310.
But, yeah, the UL310 will most likely do you just fine

Would you guys say there is any significant difference in tone b/t the 310 and the 410, or is it just volume?

jmain said:

Would you guys say there is any significant difference in tone b/t the 310 and the 410, or is it just volume?

Click to expand...

Very different tone. I owned both together for a while. I also just A/B'd (informally) the Series I 310UL and the Series II and TOTALLY dug the series I more...more articulate and punchy than the surprisingly wide and somewhat scooped sounding Series II (and I found the 310UL Series I somewhat scooped to begin with... by scooped, I mean a relatively high ratio of deep low end to mids and upper mids).

The Series I 410UL is very punchy, and MUCH more articulate in the upper mids than the 310UL Series I, and especially the 310UL Series II. The 410UL Series I has MUCH more deep low end, but also much more upper mids than the 310UL, and is exponentially louder on the gig. The 310UL (Series I) sounds beautiful on small and moderate sized gigs, but tends to compress quite a bit when really pushed. The 410UL (Series I) can sound a little too mid aggressive at lower volumes, but man does it open up and balance when pushed with some watts (500+)... it sounds better the louder it gets, and is almost impossible to compress or run out of steam with.

I don't know much about the 410UL Series II, and there seems to be very little info about them at this point. I assume that the 410UL Series II would also have less mid impact, which for some might be a good thing on the VERY mid punchy Series I 410UL. For the 310UL... not so much IMO and IME.

All of them sound good, but if you don't need massive volume, I would try to find a Series I 310UL... the best small cab I think I've ever heard. If you need the big wump, I would consider a Series II 4ohm 410UL.... a stand alone 8ohm 410 makes very little sense to me, and it's my guess that is why Musician's Friend is blowing out only the 8ohm 410UL's... not a 'Series I' fire sale.. rather that most would order the 4ohm version of that cab.

All IMO above.

Edit: I'm thinking of ordering a Series II 212UL just for the heck of it. While the Marbass LMII sounds simply AMAZING through my 410UL, the SD800 is a little bit too over the top grindy and mid punchy through that cab. I'm thinking that the SD800 and the 212UL might be a match made in heaven. After having played the Series II 112UL's I found them quite punchy and growly versus the more open sounding and polite 310UL Series II. So, who knows. I might just get a 410UL Series II for the heck of it instead, just to really see what the scoop is... but the 212UL has peaked my interest with the amazing SD800. Stay tuned!

KJung said:

I also just A/B'd (informally) the Series I 310UL and the Series II and TOTALLY dug the series I more...more articulate and punchy than the surprisingly wide and somewhat scooped sounding Series II (and I found the 310UL Series I somewhat scooped to begin with... by scooped, I mean a relatively high ratio of deep low end to mids and upper mids).

Click to expand...

This makes good sense, and matches what I was thinking on the SII 310UL. Guys were saying that the SII 410UL didn't have the mid bump of the SI 410UL, and that the S2 was a bit wider. If you take that same comparison and then apply it to the SI vs. SII 310UL, you would end up with a really scooped sounding cab. The SI is already a little scooped, (just enough for me) but moving it more in the scooped direction isn't a good thing IMO.

It may be a good move for the SII 410UL though, based on these comparisons I'm thinking the SII 410UL will sound like a bigger version of the SI 310UL, since it won't have the hi-mid hump of the SI 410UL.

vision said:

This makes good sense, and matches what I was thinking on the SII 310UL. Guys were saying that the SII 410UL didn't have the mid bump of the SI 410UL, and that the S2 was a bit wider. If you take that same comparison and then apply it to the SI vs. SII 310UL, you would end up with a really scooped sounding cab. The SI is already a little scooped, (just enough for me) but moving it more in the scooped direction isn't a good thing IMO.

It may be a good move for the SII 410UL though, based on these comparisons I'm thinking the SII 410UL will sound like a bigger version of the SI 310UL, since it won't have the hi-mid hump of the SI 410UL.

Click to expand...

Yeah... I'm going back and forth between the 212UL and just trying out the 410UL. The Bass Player review said that the difference between the Series I 410UL and Series II was more of a tweak than a total revoicing... so, I'll think on it a bit.

However, your point is a good one, and matches what Vic and Tom Bowlus mentioned from the NAMM experience... that the Series II revision 'evened' out the 410UL a little bit, but from my discussions with Vic and my limited A/Bing, seems to move the 310UL in the wrong direction.

That SD800 is an upper mid punch growl machine, and also has massive low end, which is kind of the inherent voicing of the 410UL Series I... so, maybe a little too much of a good thing. Who knows! I'll think on it a while!

KJung said:

Yeah... I'm going back and forth between the 212UL and just trying out the 410UL. The Bass Player review said that the difference between the Series I 410UL and Series II was more of a tweak than a total revoicing... so, I'll think on it a bit.

That SD800 is an upper mid punch growl machine, and also has massive low end, which is kind of the inherent voicing of the 410UL Series I... so, maybe a little too much of a good thing. Who knows! I'll think on it a while!

Click to expand...

Decisions, decisions!!!

vision said:

Decisions, decisions!!!

Click to expand...

I should just put the money in the bank.... but since it's 'gear selling money'... what the heck! I love my UL's!

SirFunk said:

Heh, I should have checked back on the thread earlier :-D I just ordered the Series II UL-310 today. I don't think i really could have justified the extra money/size for the 410, maybe a Series 1 would have been better. Oh well, i'll probably be amazed with the sound compared to my current rig (EA Wizzy 1x12 ) If it sucks i'll send it back. regardless.. i'm excited!

Click to expand...

The Series II 310UL in no way sucks, just a different voicing than the original that some will like more and others will like less. I can't imagine that you won't be happy, and my guess is that a little EQ would go a long way to evening out the differences between the Series I and II 310UL's.

And you are correct... you are in for quite a nice surprise versus that little tweeterless Wizzy... it's a nice cab also, but not in the same league regarding full range tone, bottom and volume.

Let us know what you think about it. One thing I did notice between the I and II is that the II had virtually no cone movement versus the I, which piston's quite a bit. I don't exaclty know what impact this will have, but my guess is it might actually compress less at high volumes.

I'll look forward to your review

KJung said:

The Series II 310UL in no way sucks, just a different voicing than the original that some will like more and others will like less. I can't imagine that you won't be happy, and my guess is that a little EQ would go a long way to evening out the differences between the Series I and II 310UL's.

Click to expand...

+1...we're talking about minor differences in voicing here. I'm sure you're gonna LOVE that cab!!!

I have the UL 310 with a gallien krueger 1001rb and I never have needed more volume. I get around the full 750 at 4 ohms in the rig and the sound is so growly and huge. GREAT combination with my stingray 5.

Sometimes its all about the combo!

sethlow3 said:

I have the UL 310 with a gallien krueger 1001rb and I never have needed more volume. I get around the full 750 at 4 ohms in the rig and the sound is so growly and huge. GREAT combination with my stingray 5.

Sometimes its all about the combo!

Click to expand...

+1... it's actually 5.3 ohms, but you are putting plenty of watts into it. It is a loud cab, but you will eventually run out of steam with it on loud gigs in very large rooms. It's just a function of the size of the box and moving air. I view this cab as more of a 'super 210' than a 'small 410'. Great cab, and I bet the GK voicing works great (since that is at least somewhat similar to the Thunderfunk voicing, and that pairing also sounds great).

The cool thing with the 310UL (similar to other high quality boxes), it doesn't really ever sound bad or fart out... it will just eventually gently compress and stop getting louder at a certain volume... and only on really loud gigs or outside.

Great cab!!!

You guys got me seriously considering a UL310. Weight is a big factor for me and I don't see myself needing a 410. 47 lbs is sick!!

I've been playing at low volumes for so much lately (electric drums in smallish rooms) that I haven't been able to put any juice into my rig. I actually get to crank louder in my jam room. I really hear the benefit of the UL voicing when you crank it a little.

I have some outdoor gigs coming up and I'm looking at getting a cover band together. The outdoor gigs will have great PA support and the cover band gigs will have decent PA support.

I know what you mean about the 5.3 ohms, I just wasn't being specific when I said around!

I never understand why everyone needs even more power than that. Every gig I've had more than enough volume with that rig and direct PA support though the GK.

KJung said:

I view this cab as more of a 'super 210' than a 'small 410'.

Click to expand...

I know you've always viewed it that way, but I've never played through a 210 that comes close to the 310UL in volume, and the 310UL actually surpasses some of the well known 410's out there. (SWR, and Ampeg come to mind, and it's actually louder than the pair of Eden 210XLT's I used to run ) The one exception may be within the Epifani line though - the 310UL may be closer to the 210UL than it is to the 410UL. I've only played that 210 in a music store setting, so it may be close to the 310 when out on the gig.

sethlow3 said:

I know what you mean about the 5.3 ohms, I just wasn't being specific when I said around!

I never understand why everyone needs even more power than that. Every gig I've had more than enough volume with that rig and direct PA support though the GK.

Click to expand...

Well, with direct PA support, I would agree 100%. That is a rare situation in my world, even for many loud, large gigs. Also, for REALLY large gigs with PA support, many times I don't have the option of a separate monitor mix, so I need to put out a LOT of volume on stage (where the horn section could easily be 75 feet away).

Again, great cab, and it's not really about watts, more about pushing enough air.. you can put 500 watts into a 210UL and it doesn't sound like 500 watts through a 310UL, which doesn't sound like 500 watts through a 410UL.

Just trying to clarify for those deciding between the 410UL and 310UL. The 310UL has enough oomph for almost everything. However, if you have it cranked up, and are playing aggressively (i.e., slapping on the E string), you can run into trouble with no PA support. With the 410UL, it will take everything and more that you give it, and short of a full out metal gig, will have enough oomph for virtually anything, even moderate volume gigs outside with no PA support.

IME.

vision said:

I know you've always viewed it that way, but I've never played through a 210 that comes close to the 310UL in volume, and the 310UL actually surpasses some of the well known 410's out there. (SWR, and Ampeg come to mind, and it's actually louder than the pair of Eden 210XLT's I used to run ) The one exception may be within the Epifani line though - the 310UL may be closer to the 210UL than it is to the 410UL. I've only played that 210 in a music store setting, so it may be close to the 310 when out on the gig.

Click to expand...

I did A/B the 310UL against my Goliath III, and you are right.. it did pretty well. However, at really high volumes, that extra box size and extra 10 really do make a difference. However, again.... it's a pretty amazing cab and definitely will bury any 210 I've ever owned.

KJung said:

I did A/B the 310UL against my Goliath III, and you are right.. it did pretty well. However, at really high volumes, that extra box size and extra 10 really do make a difference. However, again.... it's a pretty amazing cab and definitely will bury any 210 I've ever owned.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking this might be my next cab. The 3x10 setup has my very intrigued for the greater impact than a 2x10, but less weight than a 4x10.

Ken, I'm looking forward to your impressions of the UL212.