[smug] Well, I thought it must be, given your avatar, Red!
[/smug] I mean, how could it not be, even without the [irony] [/irony] tags showing. 
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.
[smug] Well, I thought it must be, given your avatar, Red!
[/smug] I mean, how could it not be, even without the [irony] [/irony] tags showing. 
I came of age. engineering-wise, when a transformer-based direct box was new, cutting-edge technology. When amps first began having DI outputs, the design and implementation of those outputs was typically so poor that it was pretty much axiomatic for PA guys (or at least for me) to just ignore them and use their own reliable, dependable DI boxes. (How is it that designers didn't seem to understand that galvanic isolation was probably the single most important criterion?) Now designers seem to be more informed; that's why it was somewhat perplexing to me when Fender introduced their popular Rumble series of amps with post-everything DIs. Nowadays, with many bass players depending so much on overdrive and various other effects, it seems like the ability to access a 'processed' output is at least somewhat desirable. I think Fender has done the right thing to now offer a 'pre/post' selector switch to accommodate the variety of different ways in which people -- both players and engineers -- employ the direct out. I presume this is largely in response to end-user feedback, but whatever the motivation, I applaud it as a positive development. Nevertheless, given that there are so many ways to get a valid DI signal, I don't see how the manner in which the DI is implemented is important enough to be any sort of deal-breaker (or deal-maker, for that matter) when choosing an amp.
My first reaction for this design choice was me shaking my head, whatever. I usually find ways to get what I want out of my equipment. The Rumble 100 I gig with is for all those small gigs where we usually do not have a PA. When there is PA and use the Rumble I put a DI in front of the amp. My sound does not depend on the Rumble. For larger gigs see my sig.
I am so close to pulling the trigger on an 800C. I went to my local GC and played a Rocket Bass 210 and a 200C. They didn’t have a 500C or 800C in stock. The RB210 sounded great! I wish they had a matching extension cabinet. By comparison (admittedly not apples 2 oranges), the 200C was a bit muddy and shy on the B string. (I took my own Warmoth 5-string). I have read this entire thread, and I like that the 800C seems to have a less-Fendery scoop due to neo speakers, and yes, I do understand the 4-band eq is capable of a more neutral frequency response even on the 500C. I guess I like that the 800C seems to be more capable of a “modern” tone.
Last edited:
Curious what you think of the Rumble vs the RB210 now that you have the rumble?
I love my RB210 - punchy and loud and even with my very loud band it does just fine. But I wonder if the rumble 800’s added wattage and potential extension cab give equal tone with added headroom.
I opened the Rumble 800 in the store and tried it out right next to the Ampeg Rocketbass 210. I thought maybe the RB210 had just a little more depth on the low end, but the Rumble is punchier. It’s definitely got headroom! Currently I have the gain at noon and the master at 9, and it definitely has plenty of volume for a band context. I am trying it out Sunday with the group-so can report back afterwards. I also am picking up a Rumble 210 extension cab! Not for volume, but to move air!
I am picking up a Rumble 210 extension cab before band practice Sunday!
In fact, one of the features that drew me to the 800 is the fact that it will handle two 8 ohm or one 4 ohm extension cabs. Don’t know that I’ll ever use it, but I like having the option!
Last edited:
The Rumble 800 combo outputs up to 400 watts, standalone, while the RB210mis just 250 watts, standalone. Talk about headroom! 
That'll output up to 800 watts with the cab. Definitely moving some air, if you tell it to. But, best of all, those vertical 4x10s will couple and give you more bass extension with richer harmonics! 
I did the same thing when I bought my 500! I thought the 800 was the Stage! I did buy the 210 extension cab, and only use it on bigger gigs. I play in a 4 pc classic rock band and it has handled everything we have done! But I like all of the extra features and weight difference of the 800! I have heard folks say they do not like the Neo speakers as much in the 800, but I have not tried one so can't testify on that!
I started with the 100 when it first came out (the ultra-light weight as well as power to play with drums was my gamble and it worked out). Then got a 200 for more power. Upgraded again to a 500 and it was not much different than my 200 (maybe I had a bad one). Then got an 800 and love it-especially since it has pre/post DI capabilities and even on post DI the master volume does not affect the DI.
But...recently used a house 500 at a gig and it seems that the tone is a little ballsier all at noon vs. the 800. Could just be that I didn't have to carry the 500 so I appreciated it more ha ha.
But...recently used a house 500 at a gig and it seems that the tone is a little ballsier all at noon vs. the 800. Could just be that I didn't have to carry the 500 so I appreciated it more ha ha.
The 500 actually did great! I would put it up against my Eden WT550 and Markbass Traveler 15 volume-wise. Much lighter and easier to transport. My old lead guitarist called me "one tripper" back when I was playing with a Rumble 200. Amp in one hand, bass in the other... pedal board and cables in my backpack lol. I am looking to reclaim that title.
I've heard many people say they liked the tone of the 500 over the 800. I am guessing / hoping that any tone difference can be made up with my Sansamp. I figure the post where I see people liking the 500 more... are people that bought the 500 to save some dollars over the 800. You know how it is, whatever they bought is better and here is the list of reasons why lol. I'll admit, I have an Eden WT550 pushing a Markbass Traveler 210 and 115. It'll be hard to beat tone-wise but 29 pounds vs... probably 90-100 combined, I can see the Rumble 800 carrying the most gigs this year.
I think maybe the 500 is just voiced a little fatter with 12 noon settings. I have never had issues with my 800 not sounding fat before, I do use eq or the vintage button. This was just a recent observation from using the house 500.
The 800 is what I need due to the awesome XLR possibilities as well as the weight makes packing hope to go home easier.
The 800 is what I need due to the awesome XLR possibilities as well as the weight makes packing hope to go home easier.
People just have different tone goals - it's nothing to stress over.
One guy gigs a lot - at least once a week - he owned both combos and even though he initially liked the 800 tone better played solo, he said on gigs that the 500 slotted in the right tone space for him and had more authority than the 800 - that is combo compared to combo with no extension cabs.
That's also just one person's preference - how much difference was there? - would he be happy with either if the other one didn't exist?
If all relative - I think most musicians wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a live band setting, if they were blindfolded.
I don't think the R800c is intentionally voiced differently than the R500c. Quite the opposite, I believe the 800s, including the HD head & Stage, were designed to be electronically as much like the original Rumbles 40, 100 200 & 500 as possible. It has been often commented how well the original line "plays well" together, and I'm sure Fender wanted the newer 800s to share in that. But the higher voltage components for 2.67 ohm and 2.0 ohm operation, and of course the Neodymium speakers of the R800c, may have contributed to any perceived voicing difference.
I agree. My theory is that the neodymium and ceramic speakers contribute the most to perceived tonal differences. Add the 2x10 ceramic cab to the 800C, and you have the best of both worlds!
