scotch
It's not rocket science!
- Nov 12, 2006
- 6,944
- 2,081
- 51
- Disclosures
- Please see Profile for Endorsement disclosures
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Baer Amplification Megathread!
- Thread starter KJung
- Start date
A lot depends on the methods and equipment used for testing. We used an outdoor, half space measurement procedure, with the cab facing upward, buried flush to the ground. This yielded measurements that are probably more in line with what you are hearing.
Chef
In Memoriam
The reason these cabs sound deeper than the specs would indicate is because they have amoured-dillers in their pantaloons.
Really: we've been over this.
Roger's sig line explains it all.
Really: we've been over this.
Roger's sig line explains it all.
I'd really like to try and keep this quiet, if you don't mind. Last thing we need is the PETA folks hassling our customers at their gigs!
Chef
In Memoriam
Any chance you could share your measurements with us?
I would be interested in seeing how they compare to the Bass Gear charts.
Great review Tom, thank you.
Hearing is believing with these cabs. They have finally made it across the pond to the UK and I could not resist.
I previously was running a Hd 212 with a shuttle 9.0 which was amazing, but 2 of these ml112 cabs with the shuttle is nothing short of brutal and amazingly portable.
I am not sure that I will ever really push them to their limit even in the larger venues
Welcome to the family! I can't tell you how exciting it is for us to have our gear being enjoyed by players around the world. Thank you so much for being willing to take a chance on a different type of cab by a new company. Glad it's working out for you. Cheers!
So looks like Hollowman is happily using a Puma with Baer. Anyone tried a Blue Soul? I'm still gassing over that amp for some reason. I ordered a pair of ML112s and I think my Puma will push them well, and can cover the more rock gigs. When I briefly messed with the Blue Soul I thought it was a bit polite in the mids so maybe applying the yin/yang approach the combo with the ML112 might be good for some of the jazz hits. For those I want a bit more low end support out of a single cab at reasonable volumes.
At any rate, looking forward to putting these through their paces.
At any rate, looking forward to putting these through their paces.
Thank you Roger,
It is great to be accepted.
I really love the fact that you hang out with your customers on this forum
An accessory micro amp spacer would be a nice touch for when the cabs are horizontal.......
I am really keen to test drive the Valkyrie, if it is as good as the cabs you have a sale!!
Chef
In Memoriam
You know, I'm a big fan of the yin yang, but the Blue Soul with the ML112, not quite sure. SO much of the 'Glock' tone is above 5K... that unique, super clean, hi fi 'ping' to the treble response. That would obviously be lost with the ML112. Two of the 5 tone controls of the Glock are above the functional frquency range of the ML112.
It would sound good, of course, but I wouldn't choose that combination, especially if I already owned a Puma900, which seems to be made in heaven for the ML112.
IMO there. There is very little EQ control in the 700-4K area on the Glock, and that pretty much sits right where the ML112 has its strength. Again, not that it wouldn't sound good, but it is a lot of money, and I think other heads would match up better for a better price.
Thanks for the input. You're working hard to save me money
I think the Puma pretty much kills with everything I've plugged it into. Truth be told I have only gigged the 900 once - I just use the 500 for everything. I still haven't even pushed that very hard...
I think the Puma pretty much kills with everything I've plugged it into. Truth be told I have only gigged the 900 once - I just use the 500 for everything. I still haven't even pushed that very hard...
Is there any significant difference in voicing between the Puma 900 and GB Shuttle Max 9.2 with the ML112 cabs? Both are fine amps with plenty of headroom, just wondering if there was a preference for one versus the other with different styles of music. What are the freq points of the Puma's 4 band eq? Thx...
I would be interested to know whether you guys feel the streamliner 900 or the puma 900 is best suited to the ml stack?
On my shuttle 9 I boost the lows to around 1o clock and apply a slight high mid cut to achieve a similar voice to the streamliner, .
The streamliner sounded amazing in the shop through the ml, but the puma was not in stock to try.
On my shuttle 9 I boost the lows to around 1o clock and apply a slight high mid cut to achieve a similar voice to the streamliner, .
The streamliner sounded amazing in the shop through the ml, but the puma was not in stock to try.
Per the two posts above:
Streamliner vs. Max 9.2 Very different, and while I could get close to the Streamliner with the Max 9.2 with a LOT of EQ, it never felt the same nor had the big, tubey low end and crystal clear, unique 'tube driven' top end. I found both heads fantastic with the ML112 I had for review, with the Max 9.2 doing a great job of 'punching and grinding, and the Srreamliner doing that 'Bob Glaub' round, articulate P tone as well as anything I've ever heard. VERY different heads, and the ML112 does a great job reproducing the differences in those heads. As always, the Max 9.2 is the 'safer' choice, since it is a more 'standard' hybrid/SS voicing. The Streamliner is unique, and really does vibe a more all tube signal chain.
Max 9.2 versus Puma. If you dig your Max 9.2, there would be no reason to buy the Puma other than (IMO) size of box. I love the Puma heads (again, I was a bit involved in the revoicing of the new Puma heads versus the original.... I gigged the prototype for a while and provided feedback). They 'get my tone' very simply, and just like my Markbass F500, in most rooms with most cabs and most basses, I am very happy with the tone of those amps set 'flat'. There is MUCH similar between the newer Puma amps and the Markbass F1/F500. The big difference for me is the MUCH better voicing of the low mid control on the Puma (centered around 100hz-200hz I think... fat, wide Q punch/meat knob). It is the 'FAT' knob. You can get the same vibe with the Max 9.2 with the punchy bass control of that amp combined with the lower mid semi-parametric. The Max 9.2 is 'brighter' out of the box than the Puma, but again, you have a separate upper mid semi-parametric to deal with that. Also, the multiple variable voicing filters are much more powerful than the single 'taste' filter, which I never found useful. The 'taste' filter does two things.... it either rolls off the top end through the upper mids (almost identical to the VLE on the Markbass heads) when turned counter-clockwise) and cuts lows and highs and boosts mids (literally the opposite of the VPF control on the Markbass heads) when turned clockwise (I think I have those knob directions right, it has been a while, but you get what I'm saying either way). So, it is a 'dub or old school' knob turned one way, and a kind of 'fretless articulation knob' turned the other. Cool, but limited for me.
Can't remember the exact EQ points of the Puma, but the low, upper mid and treble are VERY similar to the Markbass front end (bass very low shelving.. .maybe 30hz, great for rolling off deep low end, the upper mid at around 800hz or so, great for adding definition/grind, or rolling off ganky upper mids, and the treble at a very high shelving point (10K?), great for controlling sizzle or adding 'air' to your tone. Can't remember the exact frequencies, but th e above is correct in 'spirit' of what those controls do. The great advantage to the Puma versus the Markbass F1 or LMII/III circuit is that lower voiced low mid control, versus the almost useless low mid control of the non semi-parametric Markbass heads, centered at almost 400hz. With my F500 set with the midrange freqs lined up with the Puma's, the Puma500 and the F500 sound almost identical to my ear (which is why I don't own a Puma at this point!)
IMO and IME
Streamliner vs. Max 9.2 Very different, and while I could get close to the Streamliner with the Max 9.2 with a LOT of EQ, it never felt the same nor had the big, tubey low end and crystal clear, unique 'tube driven' top end. I found both heads fantastic with the ML112 I had for review, with the Max 9.2 doing a great job of 'punching and grinding, and the Srreamliner doing that 'Bob Glaub' round, articulate P tone as well as anything I've ever heard. VERY different heads, and the ML112 does a great job reproducing the differences in those heads. As always, the Max 9.2 is the 'safer' choice, since it is a more 'standard' hybrid/SS voicing. The Streamliner is unique, and really does vibe a more all tube signal chain.
Max 9.2 versus Puma. If you dig your Max 9.2, there would be no reason to buy the Puma other than (IMO) size of box. I love the Puma heads (again, I was a bit involved in the revoicing of the new Puma heads versus the original.... I gigged the prototype for a while and provided feedback). They 'get my tone' very simply, and just like my Markbass F500, in most rooms with most cabs and most basses, I am very happy with the tone of those amps set 'flat'. There is MUCH similar between the newer Puma amps and the Markbass F1/F500. The big difference for me is the MUCH better voicing of the low mid control on the Puma (centered around 100hz-200hz I think... fat, wide Q punch/meat knob). It is the 'FAT' knob. You can get the same vibe with the Max 9.2 with the punchy bass control of that amp combined with the lower mid semi-parametric. The Max 9.2 is 'brighter' out of the box than the Puma, but again, you have a separate upper mid semi-parametric to deal with that. Also, the multiple variable voicing filters are much more powerful than the single 'taste' filter, which I never found useful. The 'taste' filter does two things.... it either rolls off the top end through the upper mids (almost identical to the VLE on the Markbass heads) when turned counter-clockwise) and cuts lows and highs and boosts mids (literally the opposite of the VPF control on the Markbass heads) when turned clockwise (I think I have those knob directions right, it has been a while, but you get what I'm saying either way). So, it is a 'dub or old school' knob turned one way, and a kind of 'fretless articulation knob' turned the other. Cool, but limited for me.
Can't remember the exact EQ points of the Puma, but the low, upper mid and treble are VERY similar to the Markbass front end (bass very low shelving.. .maybe 30hz, great for rolling off deep low end, the upper mid at around 800hz or so, great for adding definition/grind, or rolling off ganky upper mids, and the treble at a very high shelving point (10K?), great for controlling sizzle or adding 'air' to your tone. Can't remember the exact frequencies, but th e above is correct in 'spirit' of what those controls do. The great advantage to the Puma versus the Markbass F1 or LMII/III circuit is that lower voiced low mid control, versus the almost useless low mid control of the non semi-parametric Markbass heads, centered at almost 400hz. With my F500 set with the midrange freqs lined up with the Puma's, the Puma500 and the F500 sound almost identical to my ear (which is why I don't own a Puma at this point!)
IMO and IME
