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.
Fender Rumble 200 or 500?
- Thread starter ChrisWolfBass
- Start date
I had played the 200 & 500 side by side. All controls set at 12:00. Even the volume. Centered controls on a bass. 500 sounded the best. Even the lows. I like a old-school sound, big lows, the 2x10 surprised me.
Sounded better than the Ampeg 2x10.
Sounded better than the Ampeg 2x10.
BobDeRosa
Commercial User
- May 16, 2012
- 2,445
- 4,403
- Disclosures
- Owner, Tritone Jazz Fantasy Camps
I bought the 500 cuz I didn't want to get the 200 and realize I should have just spent the extra beans for the big amp. As has already been stated, it's better to have more power and not need it than the other way around.
Another vote for the 500. I played through that combo at an open mic early this year was pretty impressed by it. I stayed for the entire evening and heard lots of players playing different basses and different styles of songs. I thought we all sounded pretty nice through it and there was plenty of volume.
And if you still need more volume, you can add another cab.
And if you still need more volume, you can add another cab.
I had both Rumbles, 200 and 500, with the Rumble 115 cab.
I found little difference between the 200 and 500. However, the cab makes a big difference to both.
To me the cab was essential. 200 + cab was much superior to 500 alone. Obviously 500 + cab is even better, but only slightly.
I found little difference between the 200 and 500. However, the cab makes a big difference to both.
To me the cab was essential. 200 + cab was much superior to 500 alone. Obviously 500 + cab is even better, but only slightly.
The 500 with the 210 cab will give you decent power for small and medium venues. You'll get 300-watts into that internal speaker, which should take you through most medium-sized venues just fine. It's not enough for large venues.
When (notice I didn't say "if") you add a second 8 ohm 210 cab to that, your amp will put out 500 watts - 250-watts to each cab. That will take through large indoor venues just fine. If you play festivals, usually the 410 (two 210 cabs) is fine for stage volume but not for a festival if it doesn't have an FOH system. Not a really a big concern though because I haven't been to an outdoor festival in a very long time that didn't have a FOH system. They typically either mic the amps or take DI signals from amps (most usually do both) and then run that through their Front Of House system.
The Rumble 200 puts out 140-watts into its internal speaker. That's enough for a small venue, and not enough for "some" medium-sized venues. Certainly not enough for a Large venue. If you add a second Rumble 115 cab to it then it will put out all 200 watts and each cab will get 100-watts. Then you have all the medium-sized venues covered. In my opinion that makes it very "iffy" on trying to play a large venue. I think the Rumble 500 is a much better choice. If you get the 200, you'll end up having to buy a better amp once you start playing gigs on a regular basis because that's just not enough power for those speakers.
Personally, I use an 800-watt amp because back in the early 70's I was asked by the rest of the group to turn up, and I couldn't. Ended up buying an amp 4 times more powerful then the one I had, and never had a problem after that...that is until all my gear was stolen in 1976. Now I have gear that I can play anywhere and I get told to turn down at outdoor Music Festivals if I try to nudge the master of my 800-watt Eden amp up past 10 o'clock using my DNA cabs (DNA Endorsing Artist). But really...go with the Rumble 500, you won't regret it. It's a case of pay more for the Rumble 500 now, or go with the Rumble 200 now and pay a LOT more later.
I may be wrong or stupid saying this, others can elaborate or correct me, but more power (watts) through the same speaker doesn’t increase volume that much, or not well, like a thin louder, if this makes sense.
More power is useful to drive additional speakers. More speakers give more volume, the good heavy kind.
More power is useful to drive additional speakers. More speakers give more volume, the good heavy kind.
As cool as the amp modeling and effects are, the thought of a firmware update bricking my amp (especially one as expensive as the 800) just makes this a hard no to me. There is plenty to go wrong on an amp before you add a bunch of "internet of poopie" tech into it. The Rumble 500 is the perfect amp to me. It's been treating me very well over the last year. So light, so loud, so cheap!
Another vote for the 500..... I played the 200 and 500 side by side. I actually favored the overall tone of the 200 by a small margin, but it ran out of juice a little sooner and bottomed out sooner when I pushed it- not that you’d push it that hard anyway. I initially got the 500 for rehearsals and small gigs, but it easily holds its own on medium size gigs. I’ve been pretty impressed with it.
This is exactly the same reason I didn’t go with the 800.... I played one and really liked it....sounded great. But to me it looked like some potential issues as well.... And I really didn’t need a small combo amp to do all that the 800 does.
I’m going to dissent here and recommend the Rumble 200c over the 500c. You might think that the 300 extra watts will blow away the 200c, but the Rumble 200 and 500 combo amps are only rated at 140 watts and 350 watts, respectively, without an extension speaker.
So? That’s still 210 watts difference between the two, you say. Converted to decibels the 200c puts out 51.5 dB and the 500c puts out 55.4 dB or just a 4 decibel difference. +/-3 decibels is the smallest difference in sound easily heard listening to music. That small difference is what you pay a premium for!
When you realize that, choosing between 115 or 210 speaker configurations becomes more important. In my opinion, that’s a plus for the Rumble 200c.
So? That’s still 210 watts difference between the two, you say. Converted to decibels the 200c puts out 51.5 dB and the 500c puts out 55.4 dB or just a 4 decibel difference. +/-3 decibels is the smallest difference in sound easily heard listening to music. That small difference is what you pay a premium for!
When you realize that, choosing between 115 or 210 speaker configurations becomes more important. In my opinion, that’s a plus for the Rumble 200c.
This explains the small volume difference I perceived between the two.
Also if volume is related to surface area, the 115 is slightly larger than 210.
On the other hand the price difference is small.
Either one, adding a cabinet makes the crucial difference.
Also if volume is related to surface area, the 115 is slightly larger than 210.
On the other hand the price difference is small.
Either one, adding a cabinet makes the crucial difference.
I agree. Played in a rock band as a sax player. The bassist had a rumble 200. Perfect.
I think it is important to take into account the possibility of adding a cab to the 500c. A 500c with a 115 cab pushes a lot of air. This combination turned out to be more than I needed, but a buyer should consider this when choosing between a 200 and a 500
Money is better spent on adding a speaker cabinet than on adding watts.
And remember that adding a cab increases the watt output of the amplifier, from 140W to the full 200W, or 340W to 500W.
And remember that adding a cab increases the watt output of the amplifier, from 140W to the full 200W, or 340W to 500W.
