Epifani UL-410 Score!

[tommixx]

HI

Hey, T. Yes, I did. Its simply the best combintion of cab and amp I've owned. Really cant say anything else than that. That being said, would really love a UL902c. LOL.

BTW, is there another type of Epifani cab I could pair with my UL3x10 and UL502 for larger gigs? Maybe a 2x10? I really dont know if anything makes sense to add to it and Im not sure if its recommended. Guess I'll get a hold of the company or start a thread in the amps section, myself. Anyone? or will it be overkill?

Rob

Is your cab 4 or 8 ohms? I don't know if the 502 is set up for 2 ohms but I'd like to know myself...Maybe I'll call them next week and see.... As far as cabs go I'd find it hard to believe that I will really need more than the 4 ohm UL410 I have and the 502! It can get really loud with just the 2 of them.....BUT Joker has given me such a terrible bout of GAS over the UL112 that I had to pick up some Prilosec OTC just today over at Wally World!! LOL! I am almost there to order at least 1 UL112 just to see what all his fussing is about...

Play em in good health!

Peace,

T

 

[Chunk-O-Funk]

Great score indeed! Although I'm not sure If I want to say congrats or I hate you.

I would love to have one, but really shouldn't spend the money right now. Unless of course I were to find an impassible deal like that.

Congrats!

 

[gkbass13]

im pretty sure the 502 only dips to 4ohms. does the 902 hit 2ohms?

 

[Alistair R]

im pretty sure the 502 only dips to 4ohms. does the 902 hit 2ohms?

Don't think so. It's a stereo amp that runs 900 watts x2 at 4 ohms. Who would need 2 ohms with that

Congrats on the score Zilla, let us know what you think!

 

[MeYHymN]

Good score.
Did anyone notice that Link Removed was a real link?
No basses though

 

[Nightbass]

All their returns are marked blems.

Okay, here's the plan. Somebody buy a couple of 902ULs and return them. Then we'll watch for the blem sale....

 

[jokerjkny]

HI

Hey, T. Yes, I did. Its simply the best combintion of cab and amp I've owned. Really cant say anything else than that. That being said, would really love a UL902c. LOL.

BTW, is there another type of Epifani cab I could pair with my UL3x10 and UL502 for larger gigs? Maybe a 2x10? I really dont know if anything makes sense to add to it and Im not sure if its recommended. Guess I'll get a hold of the company or start a thread in the amps section, myself. Anyone? or will it be overkill?

Rob

hey bike,

keep in mind the UL310 is seen as a "4ohm" cab to most amps, so honestly, you're out of luck, since the 502 only goes down to 4 ohms.

but i guess you can try using a separate power amp w/ the 502's front end. run the two cabs into a stereo power amp, and use each channel's gain knob to taste. one cab i recommend is an UL115, which actually adds a nice healthy kick of lower end booty.

to me, the UL310 + UL115 setup is actually more clear and balanced sounding than the more middy thicker sounding UL410 + UL115 setup. A/B'ed both setups at jivesound at the last DC GTG, and really liked the UL310 + UL115 more. course, a pair of UL310's is pretty face kicking. just awesome punch and presence that would just hurt in any mix.

also, tho they dont quite stack neatly ontop of one another, if you set either one of the cabs on their side, they will line up in a nice vertical stack.

another thought is to just get that 902 and run a pair of UL310's. that'd be some AWESOME firepower.

 

[jokerjkny]

(...)

BUT Joker has given me such a terrible bout of GAS over the UL112 that I had to pick up some Prilosec OTC just today over at Wally World!! LOL! I am almost there to order at least 1 UL112 just to see what all his fussing is about...

(...)

lol,

seriously, T, once you've had your sadowsky blowing full steam into a pair of UL112's, its pretty dang hard to go back to most anything else.

 

[Freddels]

I saw that one that morning but since I had just purchased the Epi PS 112 I really wasn't in the market for another cab. However, this just got me thinking about the instant rebates. I just purchased the PS112 and a week before was another item, so I just sent an email to see if these would qualify for the rebate since technically it would be a price match and I'm within the 45 days. Hopefully, I'll get a $50 credit!

 

[Quadzilla]

Looks like the UL is back there at $849 - $75 instant rebate when you check out ----> http://www.musiciansfriend.com/prod...t-Collection-Bass-Speaker-Cabinet?sku=602134X

Somebody grab it!

 

[jive1]

im pretty sure the 502 only dips to 4ohms. does the 902 hit 2ohms?

That issue is pretty moot since it has 2 900W amps that operate at 4 ohms in parallel/mono. Which means it can safely run 4 8ohm cabs, or 2 4ohm cabs (both of which are 2 ohm loads).

 

[KJung]

That issue is pretty moot since it has 2 900W amps that operate at 4 ohms in parallel/mono. Which means it can safely run 4 8ohm cabs, or 2 4ohm cabs (both of which are 2 ohm loads).

I think the parallel/mono thing is their convoluted way of saying the two channels of the preamp can be used separately with two instruments or combined with one instrument. The parallel/mono has nothing to do with the output stage of the amp.

The issue that some of us have is that the amp can't be bridged (not that you would need more power than 900 watts, but they've totally ignored the vast majority of the market that used one big cab... thereby only being able to use half the amp)... and the fact that there is no balance control... again, not a huge deal, but surprising.

 

[jive1]

I think the parallel/mono thing is their convoluted way of saying the two channels of the preamp can be used separately with two instruments or combined with one instrument. The parallel/mono has nothing to do with the output stage of the amp.

Nope, it has to do with the power section. It means that each power amp is not assignable, and that the power amp works in mono as opposed to stereo. One instrument will use both power sections, hence the term "parallel" is used. And only one channel is used in that there is no crossover or balance between the two amps, hence the term "mono".

The issue that some of us have is that the amp can't be bridged (not that you would need more power than 900 watts, but they've totally ignored the vast majority of the market that used one big cab... thereby only being able to use half the amp)... and the fact that there is no balance control... again, not a huge deal, but surprising.

I think 900W is enough to power most 4 ohm single cabs, and 500W is enough for many single 8 ohm cabs, so I don't think those players are totally ignored.

Balance control would be nice, but few people would ever use it, let alone pay extra for it.

It's not designed to be a stereo amp, plain and simple.

 

[ibz]

I think 900W is enough to power most 4 ohm single cabs, and 500W is enough for many single 8 ohm cabs, so I don't think those players are totally ignored.

Balance control would be nice, but few people would ever use it, let alone pay extra for it.

It's not designed to be a stereo amp, plain and simple.

However, I do think that the 902 would be better with something as simple as a level control for both power amps. Having this would allow you to balance setups such as a 5.3 ohm UL310 and a 8 ohm UL115 stack. This way you could even out the power distrubution to the two cabs and for a more even sound with the two poweramps in the head.

 

[KJung]

Nope, it has to do with the power section. It means that each power amp is not assignable, and that the power amp works in mono as opposed to stereo. One instrument will use both power sections, hence the term "parallel" is used. And only one channel is used in that there is no crossover or balance between the two amps, hence the term "mono".



I think 900W is enough to power most 4 ohm single cabs, and 500W is enough for many single 8 ohm cabs, so I don't think those players are totally ignored.

Balance control would be nice, but few people would ever use it, let alone pay extra for it.

It's not designed to be a stereo amp, plain and simple.

Ha! That's the third definition/description of this rather goofy spec/description that I've heard from dealers, etc.

So... all it is describing is a standard two amp head like an Eden800... just that it's not bridgeable. Sheesh.... they need a new spec writer for their site LOL

Edit: I'm sure it will sound great though... but just think how many more they would sell if it were a single amp 900 watt model with the two preamp channel design!

 

[Quadzilla]

Wow, my thread on me getting a UL-410 REALLY took a different direction! Gotta love TB!!!

 

[jive1]

Ha! That's the third definition/description of this rather goofy spec/description that I've heard from dealers, etc.

It's what's in their literature and what I've heard from the man himself.

So... all it is describing is a standard two amp head like an Eden800... just that it's not bridgeable. Sheesh.... they need a new spec writer for their site LOL

Actually you mean the Eden WT800B. If I remember correctly, the WT800 was a single power amp.

Edit: I'm sure it will sound great though... but just think how many more they would sell if it were a single amp 900 watt model with the two preamp channel design!

It has a 2 preamp channel design, just like the 502.

 

[Freddels]

Wow, my thread on me getting a UL-410 REALLY took a different direction! Gotta love TB!!!

You know . . . it's not always about YOU!

 

[KJung]

Actually you mean the Eden WT800B. If I remember correctly, the WT800 was a single power amp.



It has a 2 preamp channel design, just like the 502.

The only difference between the 800 and 800(b) is the ability of the b to now be bridged into a 4ohm load safely. There is now an 800(c) that updates the look of the 800(b) to the current Eden design (backlit logo, etc.) The 800 series was always what Epifani is calling parallel/mono design, as was the SWR900 (and the original SWR400/500, and the original 'Road Runner' Eden Series 500 and 600)... nothing new here except that the 902(c) cannot be bridged and has no way to control the output level of each power amp

Per the two preamp design... you missed my point. If the 902(c) was 1/2 the power section of the current model with the same front end (i.e., a higher powered, lighter version of the 502) at a significantly lower price point than the current 902(c), I think they would REALLY have something (versus the 'stripped down' single channel 600... same power as the 502, lighter, but with only one channel).

No big deal, just confusing when I put my 'new product marketing hat' on .

 

[el_Kabong]

Per the two preamp design... you missed my point. If the 902(c) was 1/2 the power section of the current model with the same front end (i.e., a higher powered, lighter version of the 502) at a significantly lower price point than the current 902(c), I think they would REALLY have something (versus the 'stripped down' single channel 600... same power as the 502, lighter, but with only one channel)
.

+1 Though I reckon the fact you can't bridge it is no big deal, I can't think of many cabs you would want to put more than 900w into. The main oversight in my mind is the omission of some form of attenuator for each power amp. There's a reason why every professional power amp known to man has input attenuators on each side. I'm sure I saw somewhere that they put it forward as a feature, stripped down like a racing car blah blah.... Jeez Louise. They've caught some flack about it already I'd say.