Baer ML-112 Cabs

[melodiaopus]

I have been looking at downsizing my cab from the Bergantino HT322 to a pair of Baer ML-112. I will be purchasing a TechAmp PUMA 1000, and I was wondering if this would be a great match. I have also been looking at the Aguilar GS series as well. Any suggestions would be great.

Thanks,

-Adam

 

[Mystic Michael]

Strictly in terms of the power output, there would be better choices than the Puma 1000 (not commenting on the tonal match-up)...

IIRC, the Puma puts out 500 watts per channel @ 4 ohms, or 1,000 watts @ 8 ohms bridged. Since the ML-112 is an 8-ohm cab, this means your choices would be:

run only one of them at far more power than you need

OR

run each of them at considerably less than 500 watts (whatever the Puma is rated at 8 ohms per channel)

That second option would be the only viable one, IMHO. And while it would probably sound good to very good, there would be a hard limit to the amount of amp headroom you could enjoy, relative to many other choices.

Again, strictly in terms of power output, a better choice would be a mono amp of some sort, rated at perhaps 800 - 1,200 watts @ 4 ohms, or some 400-600 watts @ 8 ohms. This would at least grant you substantially more headroom than would the Puma.

MM

 

[nostatic]

If you want to go Puma, why not 500 or 900? You could also go with Aguilar TH500. Any of those should power a pair of 1-12s quite well.

 

[melodiaopus]

Strictly in terms of the power output, there would be better choices than the Puma 1000 (not commenting on the tonal match-up)...

IIRC, the Puma puts out 500 watts per channel @ 4 ohms, or 1,000 watts @ 8 ohms bridged. Since the ML-112 is an 8-ohm cab, this means your choices would be:

run only one of them at far more power than you need

OR

run each of them at considerably less than 500 watts (whatever the Puma is rated at 8 ohms per channel)

That second option would be the only viable one, IMHO. And while it would probably sound good to very good, there would be a hard limit to the amount of amp headroom you could enjoy, relative to many other choices.

Again, strictly in terms of power output, a better choice would be a mono amp of some sort, rated at perhaps 800 - 1,200 watts @ 4 ohms, or some 400-600 watts @ 8 ohms. This would at least grant you substantially more headroom than would the Puma.

MM

If I went with this option I wouldn't just have a single ML-112 I would definitely buy a pair of these ML-112's. From my understanding the PUMA as I have spoken with Glenn from Austin Bass Traders is that it is 1,000 watts at 4 ohms. So, I would have to bridge the amp to get an 1,000 watt amp from the PUMA 1000? I'm a little confused here, I'm not a techy when it comes to amps I'm just looking for headroom and tone.

Thanks.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

If I went with this option I wouldn't just have a single ML-112 I would definitely buy a pair of these ML-112's. From my understanding the PUMA as I have spoken with Glenn from Austin Bass Traders is that it is 1,000 watts at 4 ohms. So, I would have to bridge the amp to get an 1,000 watt amp from the PUMA 1000? I'm a little confused here, I'm not a techy when it comes to amps I'm just looking for headroom and tone.

Thanks.

Run 1 cab per channel, you'll be fine. Don't mess with bridging.

 

[melodiaopus]

Run 1 cab per channel, you'll be fine. Don't mess with bridging.

As of right now I am running a Bergantino HT322 which is 4ohms. How would I get the full 1,000 watt head room out of this? I always thought that if the 1,000 4ohm RMS rating on the amp meant that if I had an 4ohm cab that 1,000 watt headroom is now "activated" in such a brief "ohms for dummies" way of looking at it.

 

[KJung]

If I went with this option I wouldn't just have a single ML-112 I would definitely buy a pair of these ML-112's. From my understanding the PUMA as I have spoken with Glenn from Austin Bass Traders is that it is 1,000 watts at 4 ohms. So, I would have to bridge the amp to get an 1,000 watt amp from the PUMA 1000? I'm a little confused here, I'm not a techy when it comes to amps I'm just looking for headroom and tone.

Thanks.

For a single ML112 or two ML112's, the Puma to get is the 900. It would put about about 500 watts at 8ohms into a single ML112, and 900 into the stack, which is just about perfect to get maximum performance.

It is smaller and less expensive than the 1000, which is really designed to run a cab and a 'Pleasure Pad'.

Should be a fantastic rig if you want it clean, accurate, and loud, and very 'plug and play' simple.

The only negative I've heard about the 500/900 is that the headphone out is a bit hissy.

 

[KJung]

As of right now I am running a Bergantino HT322 which is 4ohms. How would I get the full 1,000 watt head room out of this? I always thought that if the 1,000 4ohm RMS rating on the amp meant that if I had an 4ohm cab that 1,000 watt headroom is now "activated" in such a brief "ohms for dummies" way of looking at it.

You are basically correct. The original Puma1000 was a dual mono amp that could only be bridged at 8ohms, so you couldn't bridge into a 4ohm cab or two 8ohm cab. The updated 1000 'fixes' that issue (due to them moving to a different power module), and will allow you to bridge into 4ohms, putting out the full 1000 watts.

That would work fine with one or two 8ohm ML112's (or your 4ohm HT322). However, the point is, why pay for the complexity of a dual mono design when you can get the same tone and virtually the same power output from the Puma900, which is a monoblock design, is half the size of the 1000, and costs significantly less. And you eliminate the complexity of bridging, etc.

The 1000 is still in the line-up because TeCamp makes a product called a Pleasure Pad, which you stand on and it results in the 'feel' of having your cab turned up very loud on stage when you are playing at a more 'professional' stage volume with good front of house support. So, one channel of the 1000 has a low end extension/boost control to get the rumble out of the Pleasure Pad, and then the other side of the power amp would drive a stage monitor/backline cab.

The 900 is just designed to run a single 4 ohm cab, or a single 8 ohm cab or two 8ohm cabs. Simple, small, light, and beautiful sounding.

 

[melodiaopus]

Kjung, I was specifically waiting for a response from you. The price of the PUMA 1000 is of no concern to me. What would be the reason not to have the PUMA 1000 with a future setup like this. What about the tone quality of the PUMA 1000 with a pair of Baer ML-112's? As of right now I will be using my Bergantino HT322. Any suggestions on the TechAmp cabs and how they compare to the Baer models?

 

[R Baer]

As of right now I am running a Bergantino HT322 which is 4ohms. How would I get the full 1,000 watt head room out of this? I always thought that if the 1,000 4ohm RMS rating on the amp meant that if I had an 4ohm cab that 1,000 watt headroom is now "activated" in such a brief "ohms for dummies" way of looking at it.

Personally, I've never bought into this concept of having enormous amounts of power on hand for "headroom". In all my playing years, I've never owned an amp with over 600watts and I've never felt like I needed more power from my amp. With 500w to 600w on tap, you are much better off getting your extra "headroom" by adding more (or larger) speaker cabs and not by pushing more wattage into smaller cabs.

If you are set on class D, I heard an Aguilar TH350 a while back and thought it was a very good match with these cabs. The little bit of grind in that amp works really well with the mid driver. No experience with the Puma, but Ken would probably have a good idea. I tend to prefer amps without a large baked in top end EQ boost with these cabs. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call.

 

[KJung]

Kjung, I was specifically waiting for a response from you. The price of the PUMA 1000 is of no concern to me. What would be the reason not to have the PUMA 1000 with a future setup like this. What about the tone quality of the PUMA 1000 with a pair of Baer ML-112's? As of right now I will be using my Bergantino HT322. Any suggestions on the TechAmp cabs and how they compare to the Baer models?

The reason is that the Puma900 will do everything the 1000 does if you are driving two identical 8ohm cabs (or one), and will do it for a lower price in a smaller box and a simpler configuration. It should sound virtually the same. Again, the dual-mono configuration Puma1000 is, IMO, at this point, a 'specialty head' for the specific situation I described (or, if you happen to have TWO 4ohm cabs). Kind of similar to the decision of buying the Genz Shuttle Max 12.2 versus the 9.2.... one is optimized for running two 4ohm cabs (the 12.2) and one is optimized for running one or two 8ohm cabs (or a single 4ohm cab).

I agree with Roger that a good couple/few hundred watts into an ML112 would probably be good enough (i.e., the Puma500). However, the price is not that much more for the 900, and the tone/sound is identical. And, with Roger's Eminence 3015 variant, 450 high quality watts into each cab (or one cab running the head at 8ohms) is just about darn near perfect!

IMO, if you like the Markbass heads, you will love the new Puma's.... .similar 'clean but warm/not clinical' tone, and a suprisingly similar front end (i.e., four bands of fixed EQ and an overall voicing filter).

However, not so much trying to sell you on the Puma900 in general as I am trying to communicate that IF you want a Puma head, and you are planning on using one or two ML112's, I think the Puma900 is the optimal TecAmp model for that purpose.

 

[tombowlus]

However, not so much trying to sell you on the Puma900 in general as I am trying to communicate that IF you want a Puma head, and you are planning on using one or two ML112's, I think the Puma900 is the optimal TecAmp model for that purpose.

I'd have to agree with that. I will also point out that the two ML-112's will work wonderfully with a wide variety of heads. I've had great luck with the 300-watt Mesa/Boogie WalkAbout, the 500-watt Orange Terror Bass, and the 800-watt GK MB800. These cabs do a good job with the different voicings, as well as the different power levels. They seem to make the most out of the lower powered heads, and yet also have no complaints with higher powered heads. Great cabs, IME/IMHO.

 

[KJung]

I'd have to agree with that. I will also point out that the two ML-112's will work wonderfully with a wide variety of heads. I've had great luck with the 300-watt Mesa/Boogie WalkAbout, the 500-watt Orange Terror Bass, and the 800-watt GK MB800. These cabs do a good job with the different voicings, as well as the different power levels. They seem to make the most out of the lower powered heads, and yet also have no complaints with higher powered heads. Great cabs, IME/IMHO.

+1 Roger's ML112 is very forgiving. It sounded GREAT with my STreamliner and my Markbass F500 also. Very evenly voiced, and nice sculpting of the mid driver tone so you don't need massive EQ up there to smooth it out. Very 'natural extension of the woofer'. Nice, usable low end that doesn't need extra hi passing or lots of fancy EQ, etc. It just sounds like a darn good bass cab!

 

[melodiaopus]

I sort of gone against the grain on the suggestions and spoke with Glenn from Austin Bass Traders and he recommended that the PUMA 1000 has much more options tonally and cab configurations. He wasn't trying to sell me something that I didn't need. So, I went with the PUMA 1000.


Thanks

 

[tombowlus]

I sort of gone against the grain on the suggestions and spoke with Glenn from Austin Bass Traders and he recommended that the PUMA 1000 has much more options tonally and cab configurations. He wasn't trying to sell me something that I didn't need. So, I went with the PUMA 1000.


Thanks

Glenn knows his stuff. I'm sure the Puma 1000 will sound fine with those cabs.

 

[Mystic Michael]

From my understanding the PUMA as I have spoken with Glenn from Austin Bass Traders is that it is 1,000 watts at 4 ohms. So, I would have to bridge the amp to get an 1,000 watt amp from the PUMA 1000?

The original Puma1000 was a dual mono amp that could only be bridged at 8ohms, so you couldn't bridge into a 4ohm cab or two 8ohm cab. The updated 1000 'fixes' that issue (due to them moving to a different power module), and will allow you to bridge into 4ohms, putting out the full 1000 watts.

Ya see, my remarks were based on the assumption that the original Puma 1000 was still the only Puma 1000 in existence. I wasn't aware that TecAmp had actually switched the power module to allow full power output @ 4 ohms. But it's a darned good thing, IMHO.

I was at one time evaluating this amp head for myself - but rejected it, since it seemed to be optimal only for use with a pair of small 4-ohm cabs (unusual) or with one monster 8-ohm cab (even more unusual). I'm glad that TecAmp has now seen fit to bring this model into line with the way most all amps operate.

MM

 

[tombowlus]

Ya see, my remarks were based on the assumption that the original Puma 1000 was still the only Puma 1000 in existence. I wasn't aware that TecAmp had actually switched the power module to allow full power output @ 4 ohms. But it's a darned good thing, IMHO.

I was at one time evaluating this amp head for myself - but rejected it, since it seemed to be optimal only for use with a pair of small 4-ohm cabs (unusual) or with one monster 8-ohm cab (even more unusual). I'm glad that TecAmp has now seen fit to bring this model into line with the way most all amps operate.

MM

I like the ability to put 1,000 watts into 4 ohms, but this means that the 500 watts per side is only at 2 ohms, and I don't see many players running two 2-ohm loads. This means that it's probably 250 watts per side into 4 ohms, and 125 watts or so per side into 8 ohm loads. So pretty much, it's going to be used in bridged mono by most players most of the time. The older Puma 1000 is actually a bit more flexible. 500 watts into one (or two) 4-ohm cab(s) is almost always more than enough, IME, and I liked the ability to back off the output on one of the channels, if you are mixing two cabs with different power handling capabilities.

Still, any way you slice it, Thomas Eich makes some nice amps!

 

[melodiaopus]

In regards to the Baer ML-112, Glenn suggested that I check out some TecAmp cabs as well. He said that the S-series cabs are very musical and very punch, with lots of great upper color's. I was just curious the tone quality of the Baer ML-112's. I like the idea of having seperate 1x12's because if smaller gig comes up then I would have to lug aroung a 50 lbs 2x12 cab. I like the ideal of the compact ML-112, but since I have never heard these cabs I would like to get some idea of the tone of the speakers in comparison to say a Bergantino or Epifani cab, since those are the last two cab I have had in the last few years.

Any tone quality of the TecAmp S212 would be awesome, too.

-Adam

 

[nostatic]

The S212 is 40 lbs. I'll be putting one through its paces next week.

 

[melodiaopus]

The S212 is 40 lbs. I'll be putting one through its paces next week.

So you don't have the S212 yet?