Bergantino AE212 - Just Released

[Chef]

If you need more mid-forward out of the M6, just choose voice 4. Pretty easy
If that doesn't get you there, you can roll a tad of bass out, and roll a tad of mids in.
Voice 4 is generally already too mid-forward for me. YMMV, etc.

Vision:
Saluki has a nice AE410 f/s now.

 

[KJung]

Actually, I posted a method to do just that a while back that, at least, worked well for me. But you gotta' be willing to set a voice and use the EQ a bit. Definitely easier on the M9, but also definitely not impossible, or even all that hard on the M6. Just takes a little tweaking.

IMHO/IME anyhoo...

Definitely lots of voicing control in the M6 with those Mesa 'interacting' tone controls. Just don't really dig that myself, and it is a bit harder to quickly tweak for the room with that sort of limited, interactive EQ for me. I'd again rather have a head that is reasonably even out of the box, and then use the EQ to keep it that way.

That being said, the tighter low end, lower mid and upper mid bump of the AE410 seems to just KILL with the M6... nice yin yang there with very little knob twisting IME. With the wider, smoother, smaller AE212, I can think of better options myself for that cab.

The AE212 is WAY different than your 2 x AE210 rig.

 

[vision]

Vision:
Saluki has a nice AE410 f/s now.

That one definitely caught my eye, but Ken being local is a huge plus...no shipping needed.

 

[KJung]

If you need more mid-forward out of the M6, just choose voice 4. Pretty easy
If that doesn't get you there, you can roll a tad of bass out, and roll a tad of mids in.
Voice 4 is generally already too mid-forward for me. YMMV, etc.

Vision:
Saluki has a nice AE410 f/s now.

That doesn't really work IMO... much too much emphasis in the upper and mid mids there with the voicing knob and the fixed mid control. It is the low mids that are a bit lacking on that head and a wider voiced cab like the 410UL and AE212 IMO and IME.

Man, I hope Saluki isn't selling his AE410 to get an AE212 for use with that head... BIG mistake IMO.

 

[Vic]

The AE212 is WAY different than your 2 x AE210 rig.

Oh yeah, of course I know that, but I wasn't making that comparison anyway. Actually, I was referring to a case that should be "worse" than the AE212 from a scooped cab perspective... or "better" for the sake of my point... my UL310.

I'm pretty confident, based on what I know about the dual AE112's, and what I've read about the AE212 and how it's different from the dual AE112's, that I'm on safe ground.

 

[Vic]

If you need more mid-forward out of the M6, just choose voice 4. Pretty easy
If that doesn't get you there, you can roll a tad of bass out, and roll a tad of mids in.
Voice 4 is generally already too mid-forward for me. YMMV, etc...

That doesn't really work IMO... much too much emphasis in the upper and mid mids there with the voicing knob and the fixed mid control. It is the low mids that are a bit lacking on that head and a wider voiced cab like the 410UL and AE212 IMO and IME.

I agree. IMHO the "trick" I used is actually Voice 5, and then drop the bass control down (and definitely never ever use the Deep control.) That voice has a wider Q and a lower center, so it's perfect for bumping low mids. And if the Q gets you too high, their funky little mid control is the perfect trim for that. Made my scooped little UL310 totally come alive and punch like Holyfield.

Man, I hope Saluki isn't selling his AE410 to get an AE212 for use with that head... BIG mistake IMO.

I also agree with this. Not that the M6 couldn't work with the AE212, but I do feel the AE410 would be a better matchup... at least for MY tastes... FWIW...

 

[Chef]

"voice 5"

i'll have to play with that sometime.

 

[Vic]

"voice 5"

i'll have to play with that sometime.

Yeah, that's the ONE voice I actually found useful. Even tho that particular Carbine has the ability to combine voicings I've never found that useful. And on the Carbines, at least for my prefs, voicings 1 and 2 are absolutely death on a stick. They should have skull and cross bones as icons. They will completely destroy you into oblivion in about any mix.

BTW, Saluki does like to combine voicings (tho I don't recall which two), so we should probably also keep this in mind when reading his comments and trying to understand his prefs... fyi...

 

[KJung]

I agree. IMHO the "trick" I used is actually Voice 5, and then drop the bass control down (and definitely never ever use the Deep control.) That voice has a wider Q and a lower center, so it's perfect for bumping low mids. And if the Q gets you too high, their funky little mid control is the perfect trim for that. Made my scooped little UL310 totally come alive and punch like Holyfield.

I also agree with this. Not that the M6 couldn't work with the AE212, but I do feel the AE410 would be a better matchup... at least for MY tastes... FWIW...

+1 Surely won't sound bad, and it all depends on tone goals. As most know, I'm a big fan of the mix and match, and I found the M6 to sound absolutely beautiful with the AE410 with virtually no knob twisting at all (maybe just a slight cut in the low end)... just a perfect match, with the big wide, open, mid polite and sizzly M6 'inherent tone' yin yanging beautifully with the tight, low mid punchy, upper mid aggressive AE410.. totally killer there!

 

[Vic]

...I found the M6 to sound absolutely beautiful with the AE410 with virtually no knob twisting at all...

Not to hammer on this, but +1, and the same is also true for my dual AE210 stack.

 

[KJung]

Not to hammer on this, but +1, and the same is also true for my dual AE210 stack.

+1 I think it is a good discussion and not OT at all. Sometimes, TBers get GAS for something without quite thinking it all through. Lots of money spent on TB by making a buying decision without thinking through the entire signal chain IMO. Been there... done that

 

[Vic]

+1 I think it is a good discussion and not OT at all.

Yeah, because it's all still boiling back to the AE212.

In my case, while I do have a Carbine I love a lot, I'm GASing for the AE212 mainly for use with my Markbass F heads, and MAYBE my TC RH450. I just have a feeling those will KILL... and not require any tweaking...

 

[bassclef04]

I know you guys are up on the new light weight Aguilar amp (ToneHammer 500) do you see this pairing well with AE212 or AE410?

 

[Eublet]

I've always thought that these deeper sounding heads work best with tight cabinets also, but the more I read and research this, it seems this is a really bad idea on so many levels. Pushing low end to a cabinet that isn't designed to reproduce it can cause all kinds of audible issues, let alone outright damage to the drivers. One of the big reasons I went with the Shuttle 9.0 was because of the excellent HPF design. At lower volumes, lowering that HPF with the LF Boost selection is quite nice, but at high volumes you can definitely hear the extra stress it puts on the drivers. Disengaging it instantly relieves that stress, and in turn you can boost lows on the EQ to get a very forceful and full sound without all that low-end rumble, and at the same time turn up the volume a good bit higher. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to any of this, but in my limited observations the last couple of days, there seems to be a lot of merit to what these propeller heads around here keep trying to bang into my head. Quite simply, you should not try to push a lot of lows into a cabinet that are below the cab's port tuning. It's a waste of power and will have side effects at higher volumes. It also prevents you from maximizing the cabs potential.

Don't shoot the messenger!

 

[KJung]

I've always thought that these deeper sounding heads work best with tight cabinets also, but the more I read and research this, it seems this is a really bad idea on so many levels. Pushing low end to a cabinet that isn't designed to reproduce it can cause all kinds of issues, let alone outright damage to the drivers. One of the big reasons I went with the Shuttle 9.0 was because of the excellent HPF design. At lower volumes, running lowering that HPF with the LF Boost selection is nice, but at very high volumes you can definitely hear the extra stress it puts on the drivers. Disengaging it instantly relieves that stress, and in turn you can boost lows on the EQ to get a very forceful and full sound without all that low-end rumble, and at the same time turn up the volume even higher. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to any of this, but in my limited observations the last couple of days, there seems to be a lot of merit to what these propeller heads around here keep trying to bang into my head. Quite simply, you should not try to push a lot of lows into a cabinet that go below the cab's port tuning.

I think what we are talking about is a bit different... more the ratio of low mids to bass versus the absolute depth of the low end.

I agree, amps like the Puma, the EA iAmp800, etc. that put out massive deep low end (through either voicing tools or the setting of a hi pass filter) can really mess up the performance of a cab.

The M6 we are talking about probably doesn't go any lower in an absolute sense than the Markbass or Genz heads, that are voiced quite tight on the low end to my ear (i.e., you don't see much speaker pistoning even when really pushing the low notes). However, the M6 really has a dip in the low mids that makes it sound 'deep but not punchy' to my ear, and there is no low mid control on the amp. That is why a cab IMO like the AE410, that has what I hear as a literal bump around 200hz can work so well with a head like the M6.

+1 to your basic comment though... I have become a bit wary of using my TecAmp Puma500 in loud situations, given that it seems to really pump out some true, deep low end (i.e., 40hz and below) that is lower than most cabs are comfortable with at higher volumes.

 

[Eublet]

I guess I'm just trying to work out for myself if what I've thought for quite a while is a good idea or not. Since I like a tight, controlled low-end, I've often chosen cabs that do that, and then occasionally paired them with heads that are anywhere on that spectrum. I never boosted low-end on the LMII because it was already so full to begin with. That lead me to want an IP310 since folks always claimed you would never need to boost lows with it. Boy were they right! Instead I was looking for ways to remove lows without killing the tone. Finally just gave up, although I think a good HPF probably would have done it.

Back to the LMII, I think maybe a big reason why the RH450 seemed to have more absolute volume had a lot to do with the tighter bottom such that I could turn it up more. Maybe the stress I attributed to the LMII at the time was actually the cabinet not liking all that extra low-end content. With both the RS212 and Neox212,
the RH450 could be cranked, and it just drove the cabinets harder. The Shuttle 6.0 was as loud as the LMII, but it didn't have quite the same amount of punchy bottom. Engaging the LF Extension on the 6.0 took a bit of the usable power away from the 6.0, and it seemed to make the end result feel less punchy as a result. With the 9.0 however, the head never flinches even with that extension enabled, at least not at the wattage that the AE212 can handle. But as you ease the volume up higher you can definitely hear the cab unloading that low end in an increasingly unpleasant way. I haven't pushed it too hard because I'm a bit nervous about what could happen. What's so cool to me is to hit that little button and make it all go away. Volume stays the same, low-end tightens up, and I'm good for another 5-6 clicks on the master, even if I boost lows by 2 or 3db.

It's way cool.

 

[KJung]

I guess I'm just trying to work out for myself if what I've thought for quite a while is a good idea or not. Since I like a tight, controlled low-end, I've often chosen cabs that do that, and then occasionally paired them with heads that are anywhere on that spectrum. I never boosted low-end on the LMII because it was already so full to begin with. That lead me to want an IP310 since folks always claimed you would never need to boost lows with it. Boy were they right! Instead I was looking for ways to remove lows without killing the tone. Finally just gave up, although I think a good HPF probably would have done it.

Back to the LMII, I think maybe a big reason why the RH450 seemed to have more absolute volume had a lot to do with the tighter bottom such that I could turn it up more. Maybe the stress I attributed to the LMII at the time was actually the cabinet not liking all that extra low-end content. With both the RS212 and Neox212,
the RH450 could be cranked, and it just drove the cabinets harder. The Shuttle 6.0 was as loud as the LMII, but it didn't have quite the same amount of punchy bottom. Engaging the LF Extension on the 6.0 took a bit of the usable power away from the 6.0, and it seemed to make the end result feel less punchy as a result. With the 9.0 however, the head never flinches even with that extension enabled, at least not at the wattage that the AE212 can handle. But as you ease the volume up higher you can definitely hear the cab unloading that low end in an increasingly unpleasant way. I haven't pushed it too hard because I'm a bit nervous about what could happen. What's so cool to me is to hit that little button and make it all go away. Volume stays the same, low-end tightens up, and I'm good for another 5-6 clicks on the master, even if I boost lows by 2 or 3db.

It's way cool.

+1 It is all about the mix and match. The shuttle 9 to me is, like the LMII/III a very nice, even voicing down low that doesn't extend to the point of being stupid and sucking power and pistoning drivers all to hell. And +1, the IP310 was 'too much of a good thing' for me.

I agree, that bass boost control on the 6 (yeah, I guess it impacts the hi pass, but it is DEFINITELY a boost control) was, as is with most of those 'all or nothing' boost controls, too much of a good thing.

A nice dose of low mids in a cab (whether boosted are just 'even' down there), and a reasonably controlled but full low end coming out of the amp with no dip in the lower mids (or at least a nicely voicing low mid control to put it back) like the Markbass F500 or the Shuttle 9 or Shuttle Max heads just seems to work for me.

The only issue I had with the LMII/III was with cabs that had a bit of a hole in the lower mids, like the EpiUL's, where the LMII/III also was a bit polite down there, and didn't have a low mid control voiced low enough to 'fix the problem' for me.

I would find no need to ever use the bass boost/hi pass (if it actually does impact the hi pass... not sure on the 9) on the Shuttle 9... the 'flat' setting on the low end, with maybe just a touch of boost on the bass control, which impacts a lot of upper bass also, sounds very good to me, and quite similar to the F500's inherent voicing. Nice stuff!

 

[Eublet]

I'd love to get my hands on a LMIII to compare with the Shuttle 9.0, just for comparison's sake. From what I've seen of the LMII's scope, there is no attenuation in the low-end to speak of at all. Much different than even the 9.0 with the LF Boost disabled. What is strange to me is that the F1/500 scopes identically to the LMII/III, yet so many folks say they sound tighter. I'd like to compare those as well.

I think I need Tom B's job.

 

[Vic]

IMHO, Jason and Ken, you guys are kinda' both talking about the same thing. It IS about the matchups (Ken) and Jason, I totally agree it's a bad idea to have a situation where you're significantly boosting or cutting something to sound the way you want. I do feel that means you're basically "fighting design" in that case, and it's just about guaranteed to have poor tonal results.

The bottom line is, I feel VERY strongly that you should be 80-90% happy with everything set "flat", and then ONLY have to tweak from there for given situations. Anything calling for an extreme adjustment simply means you have the wrong tool for the job.

IMHO/IME anyway.

 

[KJung]

I'd love to get my hands on a LMIII to compare with the Shuttle 9.0, just for comparison's sake. From what I've seen of the LMII's scope, there is no attenuation in the low-end to speak of at all. Much different than even the 9.0 with the LF Boost disabled. What is strange to me is that the F1/500 scopes identically to the LMII/III, yet so many folks say they sound tighter. I'd like to compare those as well.

I think I need Tom B's job.

There is quite a drop off below 40hz with the LMII. I understand it isn't hi passed, but I guess there are MANY ways to voice the low end of an amp. There is zero issue with the low end of the LMII extending lower than most cabs can handle.

Not sure what you were hearing, but the Shuttle 9 and LMII have what seems to me to be a similar low end quality when set flat (I was able to do this comparison a while back). The nice thing about the MB heads is then you have a nice shelving bass control (or at least functionally a shelving control) set at 40hz, so that if you want, you can roll back a bit of deep low end and not impact your basic low end sound... wonderful design. The Shuttle bass control is meant more to boost than cut, since it impacts much higher frequencies. Just different ways to design.

I've never seen the F1 scoped, and again, my feeling is the low end is 'tighter' sounding NOT due to the low end roll-off (which is reasonably across the entire MB line-up), but rather that there is a bit more low mid voicing/upper bass voicing to that amp, making it sound punchier and 'tighter' (i.e., a higher ratio of low mids to true bass).

I can again totally dig into the LMII or F1 or F500 at very high volumes, and all my cabs sound nice and controlled, and visually, the speakers 'piston' at what I would call a normal amount... meaning (I think) that there isn't a lot of energy in that 'stupid low' frequency range like the Puma, the old SWR amps, the EA iAmp800 etc. put out.