• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Any Tecamp Puma or Eich owners…your input, please

drpepper

drpepper

Supporting Member
Jul 20, 2009
4,805
3,120
Columbia, Maryland
www.facebook.com
#1
I heard (but had no opportunity to try) a Puma and thought it was one of the more remarkable sounds I had heard, from that point it was on my GAS list.

I just got an Eich T500 and it sounds good, but the EQ (mid points) and “Taste” controls are leaving me with some questions.

I’d be really interested in hearing what some typical EQ settings and (especially) use of the Taste control are for other users. I know we can have different goals, but I’d like to know what others are doing to reach theirs.

Thanks for chiming in.
 
#3
bassphase said:
I'm having the same issues with EQ. I bought an Eich T-500 as a backup to my Tecamp puma 500. It seems less punchy than the Puma 500 too. I think I like the Puma 500 better.

bob
Click to expand...

Currently having both is the ideal situation that information can come from. Thanks for responding. So, even though these are said to be "transparent," I'm taking it, from what you're saying, that with the same settings (e.g., both set at noon), they sound different? Substantially so? I would think that given the basis of the differences and the things that are the same, your finding a difference "punch" would have to be entirely due to the EQ setup (baseline).

What cabinet(s) do you use? What differences are you finding in the EQ? What has your use of the taste control been?

I don't have enough time with it on stage, but the treble seems to really only control "airiness"...I don't know; maybe I can't quite articulate my meaning, but it doesn't change the substance of the overall upper range (or changes it to a lesser degree than what I'm used to), just the quality almost what I call outside of the upper margin...if that makes any sense. MB's treble shelving point is also at 10K, but it doesn't respond in the same way. This is something that clearly is going to change from cabinet to cabinet.

It may be my bass, my cabinets, my ear/preference (or a combination/compounding of all three), but the high mid seems to be at a point that just doesn't do it for me. Not sure if I'd like it lower or higher, but it doesn't seem to be where I'd like it best. The comeback has been "well, the EQ at noon is relatively flat and uncolored, so you're simply hearing what you're putting in" (i.e., telling me I don't really like the sound of my bass as much as I did). That may be true, and I could be wrong, but at noon, there is a distinct character that I believe is more than my bass is putting in. It's obviously perfect for some people but not for me.

As to the taste control. I prefer it off. Anywhere from off to noon does good things, but beyond that, it doesn't seem to add "richness" but seems to increase to depth of attenuation of upper mids and treble.

The low mid seems to be in a good spot, and the bass is just about perfect for me.
 
Last edited:
#4
My understanding of the Taste control is that it is Off at the noon setting. Turning to the left/anti-clockwise adds more clarity, turning to the right/clockwise makes the tone more bass heavy and eventually muddier. This is just the way I think about it. I tend to use it at 12 o'clock for my basic starting point and 10 to 11 o'clock if I need a bit more mid emphasis. I find it works well at moderate settings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petch and drpepper
#5
dBerriff said:
My understanding of the Taste control is that it is Off at the noon setting. Turning to the left/anti-clockwise adds more clarity, turning to the right/clockwise makes the tone more bass heavy and eventually muddier. This is just the way I think about it. I tend to use it at 12 o'clock for my basic starting point and 10 to 11 o'clock if I need a bit more mid emphasis. I find it works well at moderate settings.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting, so separate actions come from turning counter clockwise or clockwise from noon (noon being off or "no action").
 
#6
I found the Tecamp Puma handbook. This is what it says:

'This unique feature adds to the superiority of the PUMA’s tonal qualities. Leave the control in the centre position if you seek a more “natural” sound. When turned to the right (clockwise) towards “RICH” the sound gets increasingly fatter with lots of low-end punch, ending in a warm, vintage-like tone. When turned to the left (counter clockwise) towards “DRY” this control adds urgent attack and midrange growl.

The “TASTE” control allows you to quickly and effectively soften those instruments which sound a little harsh and scathing. At the same time bass guitars with a muddy, booming neck pickup gain definition by turning the “TASTE” control towards the “DRY” position.'

I would guess this is a translation from the German original as I am not sure what a "scathing" bass sound is.
 
#10
Not sure if this is of some help, but here's my 2 cents.
I played a Puma 900 for a year, but eventually sold it as it was just too modern sounding for me.
My EQ settings were usually like this:
lows - tiny boost
low mid - between 1 and 2 o'clock, sometimes even more as I liked that knob quite a bit.
high mid - usually noon.
If I needed a bit more attack - 1 o'clock or a tad more.
For slap - cut the high mids to roughly 10 o'clock.
highs - usually noon.
Taste - often noon, for a rounder and thicker tone - roughly 2 o'clock.
I never used the taste knob counter clockwise.

The Puma is/was a great micro amp, but as I mentioned, I just couldn't get used to this airy, transparent, and super open tone.
I always missed some concrete punch and bite. I like some Gary Willis low mid / Jaco mid punch, and no matter what I did, the Puma couldn't get me there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31HZ and bass nitro
#11
caligula said:
Not sure if this is of some help, but here's my 2 cents.
I played a Puma 900 for a year, but eventually sold it as it was just too modern sounding for me.
My EQ settings were usually like this:
lows - tiny boost
low mid - between 1 and 2 o'clock, sometimes even more as I liked that knob quite a bit.
high mid - usually noon.
If I needed a bit more attack - 1 o'clock or a tad more.
For slap - cut the high mids to roughly 10 o'clock.
highs - usually noon.
Taste - often noon, for a rounder and thicker tone - roughly 2 o'clock.
I never used the taste knob counter clockwise.

The Puma is/was a great micro amp, but as I mentioned, I just couldn't get used to this airy, transparent, and super open tone.
I always missed some concrete punch and bite. I like some Gary Willis low mid / Jaco mid punch, and no matter what I did, the Puma couldn't get me there.
Click to expand...

Thank you, @caligula. This is the exact type of input I was looking for.

The more I'm getting into it, the more I think I simply misapprehended my own taste some...which doesn't seem like it should be possible. I've believed that an ideal tone for me is clean and open. From there, how could there possibly be too much of those things?

I distinctly do not care for (playing) over-driven sounds, and the things that I'd call grit, grind, bite, wool, etc. are what I believe(d) are counter to my mental sound image of "clean." I'm now (re)thinking that in their subtle forms, those are the exact things that make up some characteristics..."coloration" of various amps...of what I actually like and am used to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31HZ
#12
I haven't done anymore A/B tests between my Tecamp Puma 500 and my Eich T-500. As has been noted above, the "taste" control is off at noon. On the Tecamp Puma, I've never needed to move it more than from 11 o' clock to 1 o' clock. This would go from a growlier mid to a fatter bass sound respectively. The EQ curve used in the Taste knob seems different on the T 500---moving it to the right of noon just makes it thudier and ill defined. This amp is voiced with more bass than the Tecamp is (all tone controls flat). I agree with Drpepper about the "high" control--seems to add air but not a lot of usable high end boost--not nearly as much as the Tecamp. As I mentioned in my first post, it doesn't seem as punchy either. So far I can't tell if that's an EQ issue or some change in design that affects transient response. It IS a good sounding amp and it's not substantially different but I guess I was hoping for a slight improvement and I'm not getting that, at least, not yet. Maybe since it wasn't broke, he shouldn't have "fixed" it. I'm starting to wish I had bought another Tecamp since it was mainly for backup.

Bob
 
#13
I wonder if Thomas Eich "had" to change the pre-amp design to avoid duplicating the USA Tecamps. It would be ironic as he is the designer, but in the murky world of intellectual property rights, patent law and business "non-disclosure" I can only speculate. The Puma 500 has an ICE 125ASX2 power module so that might not have changed in the move from Tecamp to Eich.

I bought my Tecamp Puma 500 used, and it has become my go-to practice and rehearsals amp. I am really pleased with it, and appreciate the fan-less silence at home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petch
#14
bassphase said:
I haven't done anymore A/B tests between my Tecamp Puma 500 and my Eich T-500. As has been noted above, the "taste" control is off at noon. On the Tecamp Puma, I've never needed to move it more than from 11 o' clock to 1 o' clock. This would go from a growlier mid to a fatter bass sound respectively. The EQ curve used in the Taste knob seems different on the T 500---moving it to the right of noon just makes it thudier and ill defined. This amp is voiced with more bass than the Tecamp is (all tone controls flat). I agree with Drpepper about the "high" control--seems to add air but not a lot of usable high end boost--not nearly as much as the Tecamp. As I mentioned in my first post, it doesn't seem as punchy either. So far I can't tell if that's an EQ issue or some change in design that affects transient response. It IS a good sounding amp and it's not substantially different but I guess I was hoping for a slight improvement and I'm not getting that, at least, not yet. Maybe since it wasn't broke, he shouldn't have "fixed" it. I'm starting to wish I had bought another Tecamp since it was mainly for backup.

Bob
Click to expand...

Thanks again, @bassphase

I'll be interested to hear if you do any direct A/Bing with both in hand.
 
#15
dBerriff said:
I wonder if Thomas Eich "had" to change the pre-amp design to avoid duplicating the USA Tecamps. It would be ironic as he is the designer, but in the murky world of intellectual property rights, patent law and business "non-disclosure" I can only speculate.
Click to expand...

Interesting possibility..."his" enough to do it again but "not his" enough that he had to make substantive changes.

It is great, just not exactly what I was expecting. As I said at the outset, I had heard another player on a Puma, but I didn't have an opportunity to try one. From the input here, they are obviously not the same thing, but my belief is still that they are more alike than different, starting with the baseline character...super clean, open...
 
#17
Here's a very simple and fast rule. If you like traditional sounding Bass Tones with a Big Warm Bottom then the Puma series is not for you. I suggest if you want a new head to consider an Aggie TH500, Ampeg, MarkBass, Peavey, Mesa etc. If however you like a clean, clear modern Bass Tone with adequate Booty but you like articulation in your tone by all means check out a Puma 500 or 900 or 1000. I see that same thing when Guys buy Brubaker Brutes when they are in fact JB Players. If you are looking for that JB Tone, especially if you like a single coil sound don't waste your time on a Brute keep buying the same Bass over and over. Of course Brubaker makes JB's but they are from the Custom Shop and costs much more than an import series Brute. I happen to like Modern Sounding Bass Tones. Therefore I'm more than very happy with my Brubakers, both import series and Custom Made through my Puma 500 and Tecamp M212 and L610 Cabs. To those unsatisified you'd be happy with something like a Boom Bass Cab with a Burgera Veyron, or the Aggie Th500, or a Mesa, Ampeg or Markbass or something like that. If I didin't run Tecamp it would probably be GK or Epifani. Again both more modern, in your face, HiFi sounding products. It's not the product it's the player. We all have our choices so if you buy something you didn't or don't like without really chacking it out, it's not the product its the choice you made. I can't speak on the Eich Products other than it made me somewhat confused when Eich left Tecamp and we never really got a good explanation as to what happened and what is happening. I know the Cabs are now being made in the US and have no idea where the heads are being made. Having said that all my Tecamp Gear is from when Thomas Eich was invloved with the Company. I also have Cabs that are no longer offered by Tecamp USA. So they are keepers. My 600 watt (4ohm) M212, and 1800 watt RMS (4ohm) L-610 Cab.
 
#18
I almost always leave my EQ flat and use taste control +/- 10% to get the desired sound. Occasionally I'll cut low mids or high mids depending on the rig or the room, but the bass and treble almost always stay flat.

One of the good things and tricky things about the Puma EQ is that, to me, it kinda 'acts like' a 2 band mid EQ with a bass and treble shelving controls. Meaning, the bass knob affects very low freq's and the treble very high. The 'traditional' EQ knobs are the two mid knobs, which work great but can have a bit of a learning curve. I like and use the puma often, but occasionally, I think i'd prefer a 3 band with the Bass and Treble closer to 'standard' frequencies found on bass amps.

Then again, those bass and treble knobs being pretty far out towards the extremes really help open up the lows and highs on 'boxy' sounding cabs, which other amps can't necessarily do.

just my .02c
 
#20
A little off topic from the OP's comparison, but Please look this up on your own because what I write below is something I heard personally through the manager at the store and what I experienced on my own, but never did any technical research.

I own a Tecamp Puma 900. I was going to get the 300 or the 500 but I noticed that the taste control on the 900 sounded different. I asked the manager if it was just me hearing wrong. He said that the 900 is not just a bumped up version of the 300 or 500. The Taste control on the 900 is different from the others. He even said that to get the best bang for the buck, just get the 900, it's the best of the 3.

The dollar difference was little and I had the cabs to deal with the power so I just got the 900. Don't believe everything I write because it could all be just some sort of "I heard someone say stuff". But if you like the Puma, then it's worth looking into this hear-say.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back