You think the Orange Bass Terror TB500h is aggressive up top? Wow. I would call it relaxed up top. But as for the DI, yeah, the TB500h has no level control or pad. That is not very flexible. It does have a ground lift. But that's it.
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
You think the Orange Bass Terror TB500h is aggressive up top? Wow. I would call it relaxed up top. But as for the DI, yeah, the TB500h has no level control or pad. That is not very flexible. It does have a ground lift. But that's it.
Relaxed is certainly not a term that I would use, I think it depends on the cab though. I wish I still had my HD212, I think that would be a match made in heaven! I bet the Terror through your AE410 would sound aggressive up top, more so than the Baer.
At least for the moment I'm going to be running Monique through my TH500 so I guess that would be an "All Love Hammer Baer".
It has been a while since I have had both cabs hooked up together, wow what a difference it makes, really brings out the fullness of the Terror, note to self- must try with Streamliner 900....
I'm with you on this. Two of these stacked is a whole different experience. IMO, it sounds bigger, fuller, louder, ballsier than you would expect from adding just one more small 112 to the mix.
Both sat horizontal on a gramma pad gives a really nice height and sounds so huge. Ballsy is a good word for these cabs, they kinda have some of that snarl that you get out of a Stingray. Maybe some of that is coming from the terror as well I guess.
Now that was a shock, just turned up to Bass direct to try the stm900 with the ml112 and thought I would try the rh750 as well after Jason's positive review, both sounded great, I think I liked the grainy sound from the rh750 a little better. The rh750 did need a lot of low end adding from flat to get anywhere near the stm900!
We then plugged in a Staccato 51.... wow, what a match up, it sounds huge, possibly even having more low end than the stm900
Bought it home to have a more extensive play but my first impressions are that this amp matches nicely with the ml112........
We then plugged in a Staccato 51.... wow, what a match up, it sounds huge, possibly even having more low end than the stm900
Bought it home to have a more extensive play but my first impressions are that this amp matches nicely with the ml112........
Now that was a shock, just turned up to Bass direct to try the stm900 with the ml112 and thought I would try the rh750 as well after Jason's positive review, both sounded great, I think I liked the grainy sound from the rh750 a little better. The rh750 did need a lot of low end adding from flat to get anywhere near the stm900!
We then plugged in a Staccato 51.... wow, what a match up, it sounds huge, possibly even having more low end than the stm900
Bought it home to have a more extensive play but my first impressions are that this amp matches nicely with the ml112........
FYI, the Staccato is basically the RH450 with some extreme baked in EQ, based on input from Rocco Prestia. It has a touch more extended low end than the RH450/750 combined with a very big boost down there, and a strong mid scoop baked into its 'neutral/out of the box' tone.
I can see where that would sound pretty good with the ML112.
+1 on the Streamliner/ML112 matching... stunningly good... perfect yin and yang with that match -up to me.
I can see that those who dig a more mid present, warm 'mid mid' sort of thing would dig the RH750 with that cab also.... that would bring the 'sealed 10' vibe out of that cab IMO.
All good stuff!
Agree with Ken. I would add that I think the RH750 is basically a "better Staccato" given the additional power and tweaking capabilities, but you have to be willing to twist some knobs to get it to sound like a Staccato.Now that was a shock, just turned up to Bass direct to try the stm900 with the ml112 and thought I would try the rh750 as well after Jason's positive review, both sounded great, I think I liked the grainy sound from the rh750 a little better. The rh750 did need a lot of low end adding from flat to get anywhere near the stm900!
We then plugged in a Staccato 51.... wow, what a match up, it sounds huge, possibly even having more low end than the stm900
Bought it home to have a more extensive play but my first impressions are that this amp matches nicely with the ml112........
The STM900 for my tastes had a much too drastic EQ curve for a clean sounding head. The scooped mids and big bottom just didn't have any presence for my needs. For a head to have that kind of EQ, there has to be some mid chewiness there to compensate, which is what the RH heads are. I find I can scoop mids and boost lows but still not get lost tonally with regard to what I want to hear.
If you like the Staccato, I'd advise you to give the RH750 a chance and twist some knobs. For me, the RH750/ML112 is not a rig I can run flat. I scoop some mids, boost a little bit of low end, and then use the wonderful Tweetertone knob to open up the top. The EQ I'm using wouldn't work with most cabs at all, though it sounds great in the studio and through all my IEM gigs. The ML112 is a great cab in that the EQ I use in all those places seems to work well with it too, which is pretty much the complete opposite of everything I've ever experienced before now. In the past, scooping mids and boosting lows always resulted in horrible tone through a cab. YMMV.
I think you may have a good Point. There is really no such thing as a flat eq, as a lot depends on the cabinet and the bass you are using, even the strings, so tweeking the 750 could work.
The thing I like about this amp is that set flat it is just so full but with no mud or boom. I did find that it compresses the low end significantly over half volume which I understand is to make it more valve like. I would like to retain a fuller sound for longer.
Do you find there is significantly more headroom before the low end starts to compress on the 750 over the 450?
I think that's because of the high pass filter that keeps things sounding tight. I think the 750 can get that Staccato tone pretty closely, much moreso than the 450, thanks to the Tweetertone knob. The 450 wasn't able to dial in that crispness up top, but the 750 goes there no problem.
I never used the 450 at max volume really, so it's hard to compare to the 750 in this regard. That said, in the bedroom, side by side, the 750 sounds bigger, fuller, louder than the 450 even at the same EQ settings. With just a single ML112 though, it's hard to compare max output. Both amps are just plain loud, period. What I readily noticeable though is the "more willing" response of the RH750 at would I would call loud gigging volume, which is not really pushing either amp.
My theory on this is based on a couple things, first that both heads have the same continuous output that is controlled by the APM. However, the 450's burst rating is the same as it's continuous output rating. The 750's APM is different in that it allows more bursting power from the power section, which also has more power than the 450 has. All that translates to me into a bigger, punchier head.
I've not published my own scope on the 750, but I have taken lots of measurements. The Tweetertone really extends the top end on up, even boosting the super highs above 10k as you dial the knob up. In other words, it not only flattens out the top end, but it also boosts it into Marcus Miller territory. It sounds great with the ML112 since that cab of course eliminates that response with the mid driver. I like that Tweetertone knob as it is KILLER with the IEM stuff I do to control zing in my ears, which can ruin a gig for everyone. I also like the placement of the compression knob over the 450/Staccato.
So, those are the reasons I think the 750 is a better Staccato. More power, and complete control over the highs. The Staccato is a more finicky head with cabs I think, and could be harder to use with other things down the road versus the 750 which can literally be tuned to whatever cab you want to use it with thanks to the 4 bands of semi-para EQ PLUS a Tweetertone knob. All IMHO of course.
And to keep this thread on track, the ML112 is GREAT because I can set the EQ on my head to match what I normally use when recording or with IEM's. On the 750, that's usually bass and treble up two clicks, and upper mids down 2 clicks, which results in a pretty gentle contour. With most every other cab I did this with (Neox 112, Neox 212, TC RS 210 & 212, Berg AE112 and AE212) the result on the gig was a bit boomy, with a complete loss of presence and cut. Those cabs were already big down low, with that typical dip between the paper driver and harsh tweeter, such that the EQ just didn't translate well through a cab. In an IEM, or recording direct to a console in the studio however, that EQ on the RH heads results in a KILLER tone that was ready for mix down without having to run multiple DI's, cab mic's and blending to get a good bass tone.
With the ML112, that same EQ works also on the gig. The ML is controlled enough down low that it doesn't get boomy. The mids are pronounced enough that the slight scoop doesn't suddenly make me get lost in the mix, and the mid driver is relaxed enough that boosting treble doesn't introduce harshness that I don't want. The ML112 makes the head work perfectly for me even in ways that TC's own cabs didn't, though there were the closest of the bunch before now.
And the ML112 totally buries the RS210, AE112 and Neox 112. I would say that it gets maybe 75% of the volume of those 212's (Neox, AE and RS) but with a much more usable gigging tone. All this is based on my tone goals of course. The ML112 makes it all happen.
With the ML112, that same EQ works also on the gig. The ML is controlled enough down low that it doesn't get boomy. The mids are pronounced enough that the slight scoop doesn't suddenly make me get lost in the mix, and the mid driver is relaxed enough that boosting treble doesn't introduce harshness that I don't want. The ML112 makes the head work perfectly for me even in ways that TC's own cabs didn't, though there were the closest of the bunch before now.
And the ML112 totally buries the RS210, AE112 and Neox 112. I would say that it gets maybe 75% of the volume of those 212's (Neox, AE and RS) but with a much more usable gigging tone. All this is based on my tone goals of course. The ML112 makes it all happen.
Looking forward to hearing more about the ML115.
Is there any chance there will be a 4 ohm version?
Is there any chance there will be a 4 ohm version?
I think the ML115 has a lot of possibilities for different variations. I went with 8ohms for the ML115 because one of these cabs is really capable of filling a fairly good sized room on its own and 2 of them would cover just about any gig you could possibly have. At some point, I would really like to do a 4ohm version, as well as a 3 way version, but it will take a bit to get those ready for market. The ML212's are finally ready to ship, so the focus now goes towards getting the ML115 and the Valkyrie out there.
Thanks Roger!
Wishing you every success!
Ditto...really looking forward to the ML-115 and the Valkyrie!!!
Chef
In Memoriam
Quick note on the ML212's. We just finished the first run and the cabs came in a few pounds lighter than expected. Cabs in this run averaged right about 65lbs.
