• 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!

#1,262
KJung said:
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
Click to expand...

Thanks KJung. Looks like if you have an SM9.2 or Puma 900 in hand and like it there is no real reason to consider a switch unless you just want to throw more money into gear. The SM9.2 and STM900 are both wonderful with the ML112 cabs but for me there is something special about that Streamliner mojo with my Valenti PJ5 bass. Still don't know why Markbass discontinued the F500. I think it was their best model. I had an F1 but sold it because it didn't have the low mid adjustment in the right place. The F500 fixed that and seemed to get everything right and they stopped making it. :confused:
 
#1,263
5StringPocket said:
Thanks KJung. Looks like if you have an SM9.2 or Puma 900 in hand and like it there is no real reason to consider a switch unless you just want to throw more money into gear. The SM9.2 and STM900 are both wonderful with the ML112 cabs but for me there is something special about that Streamliner mojo with my Valenti PJ5 bass. Still don't know why Markbass discontinued the F500. I think it was their best model. I had an F1 but sold it because it didn't have the low mid adjustment in the right place. The F500 fixed that and seemed to get everything right and they stopped making it. :confused:
Click to expand...

+1 The Streamliner is a 'special thing', and that with a P or PJ and Roger's cab is pretty amazing for that specific thing.

+1 on the F500. It made the 'F1' perfect! If I needed more power (I don't), the Puma900 would do the trick, and as you point out, it fixes that unfortunate low mid center frequency choice on the fixed EQ Markbass models.

My guess on the F500 was that all those knobs and concentrics on that small amount of real estate scared some people off. They replaced it with the Big Bang, which is back to the F1 front end in a box in-between the size of the LMII/III and the F1/F500. Zero interest on that one!
 
#1,265
Hey guys, I took just one of the ml112's to church today and played it for approx 6 hours with the shuttle and the Nordy vj4. (2 services and 2 practices)
Wow what a combination, I am blown away by how huge the tone and volume is out of such a tiny box, the bottom end is huge and the growl is just savage. The only eq was a slight bass boost to one o clock. This is without doubt the best little cab I have owned, it is so good that I think will rarely need to use both cabs together. Highly recommended.
 
#1,266
+1 I take my STM900 and an ML112 to the contemporary service of a church I help out at and have the same impression. The auditorium seats about 250 and they have a FOH system so I use my rig to get a good onstage sound and provide a DI to the board. That small rig has LOTS of headroom so I run the master quite low but the tone is just phat and it's so easy to move - love it.
 
#1,267
KJung said:
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
Click to expand...

Great info on this post, but as a Puma user, I have to say that I don't hear this much similarities between Markbass F heads and the Pumas. I have owned the Puma 500 (1u) for about six months now, and while I don't own the said MB heads, I have done quite a few gigs with them in the past.

To me the Markbass F-heads sound somehow a lot "rougher" and colder than the Pumas, at least when the eq is set flat. That MB is a classic case of "solid-state" sound to me, in good and bad.

The Pumas on the other hand definitely has a sort of "tubeyness" to their sound, and while they are quite transparent sounding, they add some "silk" or smoothness to your sound as opposed to the "roughness" of the MB. This is very noticeable when ab'ing Puma to other heads.

The similarities to my ear between these heads are that they both have a lot of punch and are "fast" sounding, the notes seem to jump right out of the speakers when you play. Other than that I personally would never say that these heads sound identical.

Sorry about the OT, just thought I might add another opinion to help people who are thinking about getting the Puma.
 
#1,268
5StringPocket said:
+1 I take my STM900 and an ML112 to the contemporary service of a church I help out at and have the same impression. The auditorium seats about 250 and they have a FOH system so I use my rig to get a good onstage sound and provide a DI to the board. That small rig has LOTS of headroom so I run the master quite low but the tone is just phat and it's so easy to move - love it.
Click to expand...

That's really good to know, how do feel the streamliner works live compared to home use? The shuttle sounds really fat in a live venue and a little brighter at home, I worry that with the streamliner that I will loose that high mid aggression and gain a whole load of boom!
Our auditorium seats just under 500 and we also run a big p/a so my rig is onstage monitoring as well, it easily kept up with a loud drummer and 5 other instruments including electric guitar yesterday!
Ian
 
#1,269
MKA said:
Great info on this post, but as a Puma user, I have to say that I don't hear this much similarities between Markbass F heads and the Pumas. I have owned the Puma 500 (1u) for about six months now, and while I don't own the said MB heads, I have done quite a few gigs with them in the past.

To me the Markbass F-heads sound somehow a lot "rougher" and colder than the Pumas, at least when the eq is set flat. That MB is a classic case of "solid-state" sound to me, in good and bad.

The Pumas on the other hand definitely has a sort of "tubeyness" to their sound, and while they are quite transparent sounding, they add some "silk" or smoothness to your sound as opposed to the "roughness" of the MB. This is very noticeable when ab'ing Puma to other heads.

The similarities to my ear between these heads are that they both have a lot of punch and are "fast" sounding, the notes seem to jump right out of the speakers when you play. Other than that I personally would never say that these heads sound identical.

Sorry about the OT, just thought I might add another opinion to help people who are thinking about getting the Puma.
Click to expand...

The F500 has a bit more character in the midrange... a bit rougher as you say when set flat. A tiny tweak to the VPF, and there you go:p Almost identical to my ears. However, the Puma900 will of course BURY the F500, and I do feel the Puma500 has a bit more headroom and open low end than the F500, although again, the VPF at around 8 o'clock brings them very close to my ear. All great stuff!

IMO!
 
#1,270
nordyboy said:
That's really good to know, how do feel the streamliner works live compared to home use? The shuttle sounds really fat in a live venue and a little brighter at home, I worry that with the streamliner that I will loose that high mid aggression and gain a whole load of boom!
Our auditorium seats just under 500 and we also run a big p/a so my rig is onstage monitoring as well, it easily kept up with a loud drummer and 5 other instruments including electric guitar yesterday!
Ian
Click to expand...

I think it partly depends on the venue and what type of sound you're after but the STM900 has worked fine for me in live venues. I use the "modified SVT" settings and by adjusting bass, upper mids at 2.5k, and preamp drive the sound is articulate and not boomy. It has that fat Streamliner mojo but is not boomy with the ML112's or with my twin Kappalite 3012HO cab which both have tight lows. Another thing that helps is working with bridge/neck pickup bias, hand position, and string attack. I wouldn't use the Streamliner for metal but for many other styles and with these cabs it has worked out well. Another factor of course is the bass itself. I play a Carvin SB5000 with single coils and a Valenti PJ5 which aren't too big down low and have a nice mid presence. A bass with dual coil pickups, scooped mids, and massive lows would be more of a problem with this amp.
 
#1,272
5StringPocket said:
Another thing that helps is working with bridge/neck pickup bias, hand position, and string attack.
Click to expand...

Great point!!!

Right hand position and PU balance can totally solve a lot of issues. Move right hand back toward bridge and dial PU blend toward bridge to clean things up and add growl if boomy. Warm things up by shifting your right hand attack forward to the neck. I do this all the time!
 
#1,273
nostatic said:
Well, ordered a pair of ML112s, should be here for weekend gig shakedowns. Still a bit worried about depth but being front ported will help as I can shove it right next to a wall without too much drama. Seems like the Puma will be a good fit with them.
Click to expand...

Way cool! Can't wait to hear your report on size, depth, schlep as well as sonic mayhem! :hyper:
 
#1,274
GRoberts said:
Right hand position and PU balance can totally solve a lot of issues. Move right hand back toward bridge and dial PU blend toward bridge to clean things up and add growl if boomy. Warm things up by shifting your right hand attack forward to the neck. I do this all the time!
Click to expand...

+1

Shifting pickup balance is my first go-to EQ move if I'm adjusting my tone on-stage. Anything on the amp is second.
 
#1,276
GRoberts said:
Great point!!!

Right hand position and PU balance can totally solve a lot of issues. Move right hand back toward bridge and dial PU blend toward bridge to clean things up and add growl if boomy. Warm things up by shifting your right hand attack forward to the neck. I do this all the time!
Click to expand...

I always play over the bridge pick up because I love the string tension and the note definition there. I had honestly never considered adjusting pickup balance though, have always just run both pickups at full volume, I guess reducing the volume on the neck pickup takes away some of the extreme lows, great tip.
 
#1,277
nostatic said:
Well, ordered a pair of ML112s, should be here for weekend gig shakedowns. Still a bit worried about depth but being front ported will help as I can shove it right next to a wall without too much drama. Seems like the Puma will be a good fit with them.
Click to expand...

They are stunning, you will not be disappointed. They are quite deep front to back compared to other cabs I have used but it has not been an issue so far for me. Looking forward to your comments when they arrive.
View attachment 302157
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back